Skip to comments.
Foundations object to bill requiring increased payouts
STLtoday.com ^
| 5-19-03
| Stephanie Strom
Posted on 05/19/2003 7:36:41 AM PDT by FairWitness
Edited on 05/11/2004 5:34:28 PM PDT by Jim Robinson.
[history]
NEW YORK - The U.S. House is considering a bill that could force the nation's foundations to give away more of their money to charity each year, creating a potential windfall of billions of dollars for nonprofit groups.
The bill has created a furor in the philanthropic world, with foundations warning that they could be forced to squander their assets and spend themselves out of existence.
(Excerpt) Read more at stltoday.com ...
TOPICS: Culture/Society; Miscellaneous
KEYWORDS: charity; foundations; nonprofits; philanthropy
Foundation leaders and others insist that the new bill, by effectively forcing them to increase spending, could put an end to foundations that have endured across generations. Interesting. I would think liberals would be for this new provision since, analogous to their support for inheritance taxes, it would discourage the "perpetuation of dynasties".
To: FairWitness
To: FairWitness
Interesting. I would think liberals would be for this new provision since, analogous to their support for inheritance taxes, it would discourage the "perpetuation of dynasties".Actually the foundations are the Liberal's darlings because they perpetuate liberal dynasties.
3
posted on
05/19/2003 7:45:17 AM PDT
by
harpseal
(Stay well - Stay safe - Stay armed - Yorktown)
To: FairWitness
To: FairWitness
Does this mean that there are the taxable "rich," and the untouchable "rich"?
5
posted on
05/19/2003 7:47:00 AM PDT
by
c-b 1
To: harpseal
Actually the foundations are the Liberal's darlings because they perpetuate liberal dynasties.Just so. Consistency is not a required part of being a liberal (also true, but to a much lesser extent IMHO, for being a conservative).
To: c-b 1
Does this mean that there are the taxable "rich," and the untouchable "rich"?Depends on how good your lawyers are (and remember, most lesislators are lawyers).
To: FairWitness
lesislators = legislators
To: FairWitness
Easy fix: Replace the Income Tax with a (better) Flat tax or (best) National Consumption Tax.
9
posted on
05/19/2003 7:55:43 AM PDT
by
newgeezer
(until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury)
To: FairWitness
I suspect foundations operate like insurance companies, where overhead and salaries eat up most of the revenue, and only a small portion goes to the intended recipients.
10
posted on
05/19/2003 7:57:23 AM PDT
by
js1138
To: js1138
I suspect foundations operate like insurance companies, where overhead and salaries eat up most of the revenue, and only a small portion goes to the intended recipients.Can you provide sources for this statement other than your opinion? I am not attacking you but want to understand how the insurance industry does actually operate.
11
posted on
05/19/2003 8:27:22 AM PDT
by
toddst
To: toddst
I'm just blowing off steam. With no disrespect to the people who work for insurance companies (including some of my close relatives) I hate the way insurance works. Over my married lifetime I have spent upwards of ten percent of my income on insurance and have never had a good experience with a claim.
12
posted on
05/19/2003 8:33:57 AM PDT
by
js1138
To: js1138
I'm just blowing off steam. With no disrespect to the people who work for insurance companies . . . I hate the way insurance works.I understand that feeling. However, my experience has been somewhat different. Insurance coverage compensated me for injuries from two auto crashes that were not my fault. Last fall my roof was destroyed by high winds. My homeowners insurance paid for a new roof. In February of this year a severe ice storm locally caused more damage to my home and again my homeowners paid for nearly everything.
Believe me, I would rather have had no compensation claims paid - but combined with no injuries or property damage.
13
posted on
05/19/2003 10:01:01 AM PDT
by
toddst
To: toddst
My homowners insurance -- State Farm -- paid a small ($1200) claim due to storm damage. This was shortly after Hurricane Andrew. I had extremely low rates at the time. About six months after my claim, I got a letter from State Farm saying I wasn't maintaining my property because I had leaves on my roof, and my policy was cancelled. No warning, no appeal. I had to pay several thousand dollars cash immediately to the mortgage company for temporary coverage, and when I established new coverage the rates were double the pre-Andrew rate. I am not the only one who had this happen.
14
posted on
05/19/2003 11:20:03 AM PDT
by
js1138
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson