If you think Kaiser doesn't care about the river..

[brunoflipper]

quote:Originally posted by cannon_fodder

and aside from that...

Giving away money is NEVER a a net saving.  If you give away $1,000,000 you do not save $2,000,000 in taxes.  You still come out with less money.  

I don't understand why people think giving away money for "a tax break" somehow means the person's donation is lesser.  If giving away money saves you money, then why aren't you doing it?

Kramer: It's a write off for them.
Jerry: How is it a write off?
Kramer: They just write it off.
Jerry: Write it off what?
Kramer: Jerry, all these big companies, they write off everything.
Jerry: You don't even know what a write off is.
Kramer: Do you?
Jerry: No. I Don't.
Kramer: But they do. And they're the ones writing it off.
Jerry: I wish I could have the last 20 seconds of my life back.

[sgrizzle]

Another question.. which would you rather see, someone give $20M to the Feds and keep $80M for himself or give $100M to Tulsa?

That's not real accurate figures, but roughly the same idea.

[Renaissance]

quote:Originally posted by brunoflipper

quote:Originally posted by cannon_fodder

and aside from that...

Giving away money is NEVER a a net saving.  If you give away $1,000,000 you do not save $2,000,000 in taxes.  You still come out with less money.  

I don't understand why people think giving away money for "a tax break" somehow means the person's donation is lesser.  If giving away money saves you money, then why aren't you doing it?

Kramer: It's a write off for them.
Jerry: How is it a write off?
Kramer: They just write it off.
Jerry: Write it off what?
Kramer: Jerry, all these big companies, they write off everything.
Jerry: You don't even know what a write off is.
Kramer: Do you?
Jerry: No. I Don't.
Kramer: But they do. And they're the ones writing it off.
Jerry: I wish I could have the last 20 seconds of my life back.

Phenomenal.  My new hero.

[Vision 2025]

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

...and if approved, BOK gets some of the bond underwriting.  Not suggesting that's nefarious, but I am pretty miffed that there's a $100mm gun to the heads of voters.

By my knowledge of the proposed projects and first hand experience of what it takes to do projects in the river I don't see much need for large scale bond financing related to the river projects, with the design and permitting time required for the major work significant funds will accrue in advance of need.  

In addition, there has been a rumor around that is incorrect.  BOK and it's affiliate only provided a portion of the bond underwriting for Vision 2025 and none for 4 to Fix(2).

[Rico]

Originally posted by sgrizzle.

quote:

The donation is from KFF and not from Kaiser. He donates his money to KFF and already has any tax donations he is going to get. His foundation is a non-profit and doesn't need any tax deductions.

quote:Originally posted by sgrizzle

Another question.. which would you rather see, someone give $20M to the Feds and keep $80M for himself or give $100M to Tulsa?

That's not real accurate figures, but roughly the same idea.

Well that is the most common misconception about how the "rich donate to charity"....

Below you will find an except from an article about Mister Kaiser's "Charitable Organization"....

(I do not mean to insinuate that this only applies to Kaiser... It is more of a common practice than one would imagine.)

The trick to these things... getting rid of the required portion to remain classified as a charitable organization..

From the article regarding Kaiser and others...


It is a well-known fact (especially among the wealthy) that one can deflect taxes on much of one's income by donating certain percentages of that income to charity. However, as they always do, the wealthy have managed to find a loophole. In recent years there has been a disturbing trend in the number of people who have "donated" their money to support organizations. Wealthy businessmen donate the necessary sums to these support organizations in order to get their tax breaks. The assumption is these organizations will dispense the money to legitimate charitable organizations.


However, the system is inherently flawed. The members of each organization's respective board control the funds that come into the hands of these supporting organizations. The "donors" directly appoint these members and frequently place themselves at the head of the board. Once money is put into a supporting organization, they deploy a team of lawyers to conjure a legal melee that lasts until the closing of the fiscal year and be forced to actually pay as little as 5 percent of that money to charity. It would seem that wealthy businessmen can not only get their tax breaks, but also they can keep 95 percent of the money they were supposed to donate in the process.


George Kaiser, for instance, an Oklahoma oilman who has shrewdly amassed some $4 billion, set aside a sum of roughly $1 billion for charitable giving over the last five years. However, by inserting this money into a supporting organization, Kaiser was able to keep all but $3.4 million.

[Double A]

Oooh, snap!

[TheArtist]

According to the article its Kaisers money because the board is appointed by him and thus he essentially controls where the money is spent.

The Tulsa Community Foundation,   http://www.tulsacf.org/  recently became THE largest city foundation in the country, larger than one that was for NY City. And is ranked up there with the largest foundations in the world.http://foundationcenter.org/findfunders/statistics/pdf/11_topfdn_type/2005/top50_aa_all.pdf   The aim of these foundations is indeed to not spend the money that is donated to them but to spend the income that is generated by the foundation in perpetuity. The foundation keeps the money, it grows with gifts and interest and thus over time more is able to be given than would have been given if each donor had simply given that amount as a one time gift to charity. Its the interest that is given. The Tulsa Foundation is still a very new foundation and just "getting its game on". I bet if you look at the names of foundations around it on that list you will recognize them. In time you will begin to hear far more about the Tulsa Foundation as well. Its hard to imagine that we could even have a foundation this large, its an incredible thing to have in this small city.

Has anyone heard of the Nobel Prizes? It is the result of a foundation set up by Alfred Nobel who amassed a fortune for his invention of dynamite. The funds in that foundation continue to grow and finance the prizes, generation after generation.

I remember years ago reading a Readers Digest article about the Hershey Foundation and the Town of Hershey. That foundation has grown so much and has so much money that the town of Hershey is rolling in money. The school system was designated to get a certain percentage of the funds which has grown so much, everything is top notch the best money can buy, they say they sometimes have difficulty trying to  figure out what to spend the money on.

A few years ago I received one of those requests to give money to support the Tulsa Ballet. I thought, well, I dont want to give unless they have a foundation. I would rather my money sit in a fund that grows and is able to pay year after year, for generations. Wouldnt it be better to have a large enough fund that finances the ballet rather than them have to beg year after year? I would feel better donating to a fund or at least have the option of donating both ways because I know it takes a lot of money in order to have enough to grow and finance something like that with part of its interest. But to me its feels better knowing my money will be helping people for a long time and that I can keep adding to it when I am able.

[Rico]

quote:Originally posted by TheArtist

According to the article its Kaisers money because the board is appointed by him and thus he essentially controls where the money is spent.

The Tulsa Community Foundation,   http://www.tulsacf.org/  recently became THE largest city foundation in the country, larger than one that was for NY City. And is ranked up there with the largest foundations in the world.http://foundationcenter.org/findfunders/statistics/pdf/11_topfdn_type/2005/top50_aa_all.pdf   The aim of these foundations is indeed to not spend the money that is donated to them but to spend the income that is generated by the foundation in perpetuity. The foundation keeps the money, it grows with gifts and interest and thus over time more is able to be given than would have been given if each donor simply gave the amount to the charity. Its the interest that is given. The Tulsa Foundation is still a very new foundation and just "getting its game on". I bet if you look at the names of foundations around it you will recognize them. In time you will begin to hear far more about the Tulsa Foundation as well. Its hard to imagine that we could even have a foundation this large, its an incredible thing to have in this small city.

Has anyone heard of the Nobel Prizes? It is the result of a foundation set up by Alfred Nobel who amassed a fortune for his invention of dynamite. The funds in that foundation continue to grow and finance the prizes, generation after generation.

I remember years ago reading a Readers Digest article about the Hershey Foundation and the Town of Hershey. That foundation has grown so much and has so much money that the town of Hershey is rolling in money. The school system was designated to get a certain percentage of the funds which has grown so much, everything is top notch the best money can buy, they say they sometimes have difficulty trying to  figure out what to spend the money on.

A few years ago I received one of those requests to give money to support the Tulsa Ballet. I thought, well, I dont want to give unless they have a foundation. I would rather my money sit in a fund that grows and is able to pay year after year, for generations. Wouldnt it be better to have a large enough fund that finances the ballet rather than them have to beg year after year? I would feel better donating to a fund or at least have the option of donating both ways because I know it takes a lot of money in order to have enough to grow and finance something like that with part of its interest. But to me its feels better knowing my money will be helping people for a long time and that I can keep adding to it when I am able.

Marvelous...... Great example of the "No Spin Zone"...

Nice touch the Ballet..!

[Double A]

quote:Originally posted by TheArtist

According to the article its Kaisers money because the board is appointed by him and thus he essentially controls where the money is spent.

The Tulsa Community Foundation,   http://www.tulsacf.org/  recently became THE largest city foundation in the country, larger than one that was for NY City. And is ranked up there with the largest foundations in the world.http://foundationcenter.org/findfunders/statistics/pdf/11_topfdn_type/2005/top50_aa_all.pdf   The aim of these foundations is indeed to not spend the money that is donated to them but to spend the income that is generated by the foundation in perpetuity. The foundation keeps the money, it grows with gifts and interest and thus over time more is able to be given than would have been given if each donor had simply given that amount as a one time gift to charity. Its the interest that is given. The Tulsa Foundation is still a very new foundation and just "getting its game on". I bet if you look at the names of foundations around it on that list you will recognize them. In time you will begin to hear far more about the Tulsa Foundation as well. Its hard to imagine that we could even have a foundation this large, its an incredible thing to have in this small city.

Has anyone heard of the Nobel Prizes? It is the result of a foundation set up by Alfred Nobel who amassed a fortune for his invention of dynamite. The funds in that foundation continue to grow and finance the prizes, generation after generation.

I remember years ago reading a Readers Digest article about the Hershey Foundation and the Town of Hershey. That foundation has grown so much and has so much money that the town of Hershey is rolling in money. The school system was designated to get a certain percentage of the funds which has grown so much, everything is top notch the best money can buy, they say they sometimes have difficulty trying to  figure out what to spend the money on.

A few years ago I received one of those requests to give money to support the Tulsa Ballet. I thought, well, I dont want to give unless they have a foundation. I would rather my money sit in a fund that grows and is able to pay year after year, for generations. Wouldnt it be better to have a large enough fund that finances the ballet rather than them have to beg year after year? I would feel better donating to a fund or at least have the option of donating both ways because I know it takes a lot of money in order to have enough to grow and finance something like that with part of its interest. But to me its feels better knowing my money will be helping people for a long time and that I can keep adding to it when I am able.

A tax shelter by any other name would smell as sweet.

[TheArtist]

How much of those "sheltered taxes" would have gone to Tulsa?

[Rico]

quote:Originally posted by TheArtist

How much of those "sheltered taxes" would have gone to Tulsa?

Enough to meet the time line and fiscal requirements of maintaining the shelter....

A percentage of the 1 Billion in the fund.

You can not make a charitable donation look anymore like a business deal than this one...

If you would like to believe that the facts are just a shrewd businessman trying to maximize his charitable giving ability.... so be it.

If that were the case... I think he would not have placed preconditions on his "gift".

Now we will hear from the "No Spin Zone"......

Artist.... Take it away.

[TheArtist]

So that 1 billion would count as his income and Tulsa would get an income tax? I didnt know we had a local income tax? I bet the federal and state governments would get their share of that 1 billion if it hadnt been sheltered. I think its nice that you and doubleA are looking out for the Federal and State governments to make sure they get their fare share and all. However I would rather see that "sheltered" amount go to a Tulsa foundation than have a chunk of it go to the federal and state governments. Now, I dont pretend to know all about businesses and taxes. But just curious as to how putting 1 billion in a local foundation is less beneficial to Tulsa than not?

[swake]

quote:Originally posted by TheArtist

So that 1 billion would count as his income and Tulsa would get an income tax? I didnt know we had a local income tax? I bet the federal and state governments would get their share of that 1 billion if it hadnt been sheltered. I think its nice that you and doubleA are looking out for the Federal and State governments to make sure they get their fare share and all. However I would rather see that "sheltered" amount go to a Tulsa foundation than have a chunk of it go to the federal and state governments. Now, I dont pretend to know all about businesses and taxes. But just curious as to how putting 1 billion in a local foundation is less beneficial to Tulsa than not?

It's all nonsense.

he could have kept the billion dollars, paid $360 million in federal income tax and another $70 million in state taxes. He could have bought an island somewhere with the remaining $570 million.

His federal taxes would have paid for about 12 hours in Iraq and the state taxes would have paid for something nice in Oklahoma City, a bridge or a new building at the health sciences center or something.

Instead his money is going to stay here, some here really would prefer he had done something else? Double A you are just making yourself sound even more foolish.

[USRufnex]

quote:Originally posted by Rico

If you would like to believe that the facts are just a shrewd businessman trying to maximize his charitable giving ability.... so be it.

If that were the case... I think he would not have placed preconditions on his "gift".

That actually is my opinion of Mr Kaiser until proven otherwise.  I think I'd put him in the catagory of "shrewd philanthropist" who will value long-term gains over short-term, one time "gifts."  And I think we should thank our lucky stars that he's on "our team."  

It could be worse.  At least we get to vote on whether a 4/10 of a penny tax increase is spent on the river.

Still not sure whether I'm voting yes or no on the tax but I WANT to be able to vote for it...  

I know Tulsa is NOT Chicago.  Chicago is a world-class city-- this despite the kind of political machinations and wheelings and dealings on Millennium Park... and the fact that none of us living in Chicago at the time was allowed to vote on how/whether public $$$ would be used... let's just say the evolution of Chicago's Millennium Park project makes LaFortune's Vision2025 and "Kaiser's River Tax" look relatively straight-forward and reasonable...

http://www.lynnbecker.com/repeat/Gehry/afterthehype.htm

quote:What lessons does Millennium Park teach us? What cautionary tales? Will it further energize a Chicago architectural revival, or is a last hurrah in a time when standards continue to nose-dive?

Perhaps a good place to begin is by debunking a couple of the giddier notions that gained circulation in the general inebriation. The most glaring is the incessant PR mantra that it doesn't matter that the park was fours years behind schedule and that its cost more than tripled, to $475,000,000. In the long run, we are told, people won't remember the cost or struggle, only how good the park is. "Yes, and in the long run we are all dead," is how economist John Maynard Keynes once refuted a similarly shaky notion."
-----------------------------------------------

Although it finished in a blaze of glory, Millennium Park needs to be remembered as an object lesson in how not to do such a project. When the mayor announced, in March of 1998, what was then called "Lakefront Gardens", it was basically a $66,000,000 parking garage over the old Illinois Central railroad tracks with a fairly simple covering of parkland that was to include a new outdoor concert space, to be finished by summer of 2000 (hence "Millennium Park." Even better, Daley announced that the entire $150,000,000 cost - minus $30,000,000 to be raised from private donors - would be covered by revenues from the new garage."

Hmmm...

[Rico]

quote:Originally posted by swake

quote:Originally posted by TheArtist

So that 1 billion would count as his income and Tulsa would get an income tax? I didnt know we had a local income tax? I bet the federal and state governments would get their share of that 1 billion if it hadnt been sheltered. I think its nice that you and doubleA are looking out for the Federal and State governments to make sure they get their fare share and all. However I would rather see that "sheltered" amount go to a Tulsa foundation than have a chunk of it go to the federal and state governments. Now, I dont pretend to know all about businesses and taxes. But just curious as to how putting 1 billion in a local foundation is less beneficial to Tulsa than not?

It's all nonsense.

he could have kept the billion dollars, paid $360 million in federal income tax and another $70 million in state taxes. He could have bought an island somewhere with the remaining $570 million.

His federal taxes would have paid for about 12 hours in Iraq and the state taxes would have paid for something nice in Oklahoma City, a bridge or a new building at the health sciences center or something.

Instead his money is going to stay here, some here really would prefer he had done something else? Double A you are just making yourself sound even more foolish.

Not quite so swake... The money you say he could have paid as income tax had been exempted from tax by being placed in the fund...

The money in the fund is not taxable unless the fund for whatever reason no longer qualifies as a tax exempt organization...

The money you say he could have paid as tax on the 1 Billion was not the amount of tax on a Billion Dollars... It is the amount that was donated to charities to continue the qualification of the fund as a tax exempt entity.

Now Mister artist.... You are very right we do not have a local tax.

The one Billion Dollars in the fund if at this point were found to be taxable... Would have further reaching implications than just paying the tax on it.

None of this is a practice that is out of the ordinary for individuals with extreme wealth.

I was just saying that there may be a motive to the time line for the donation other than what has been brought to the surface so far... Not that the motive would be illegal because it would not..
It may not follow the path of an altruistic gesture precisely... But it would not be illegal.