Comments on: Philanthropic donation of the day, John Paulson edition A slice of lime in the soda Sun, 26 Oct 2014 19:05:02 +0000 hourly 1 By: y2kurtus Fri, 26 Oct 2012 02:05:07 +0000 @Strych09

What is Felix correct about?

That JP wants to build up some good will in the community? I’ll grant you that I guess.

That we the little people were entitled to the treasury’s share of his $100,000,000 gift and so really we not he donated 35,000,000 of that amount and he donated only 65,000,000? If that helps you sleep nights sure… believe that.

Unlike Steve Jobs or Thomas Edison, JP didn’t invent something that will benefit a generation of people around the world. What he did do was to spot the largest imbalance of risk that has ever existed and show it to the world with his investors money.

If you have any question as to if that was the “right thing” or a “good thing” look at Japan 1990 – 2012. Valuations got so far out of line that their market fell 75% over a 22 year period and has yet to recover. I’ll repeat for effect. 75% market drop no recovery 22 years from peak. When you envy JP, his money, and his gifting tell yourself that he helped you avoid that fate.

Remember also that Felix sort of belittled Mr.Facebooks mega-donation to Newark Public schools. It seems the rich can do little to appease the masses anymore. Dangerous times!

By: Strych09 Wed, 24 Oct 2012 20:00:58 +0000 y2kurtu, you’re obviously unacquainted with the concept of a tax expenditure.

You’re kinda right that “it’s not “our money” until it hits the treasury’s account”, but the thing you’re perhaps willfully missing is that if it weren’t for the tax deduction(s) embedded in the tax code, that money would have gone into the treasury. For that reason, the revenue losses to the U.S. Treasury is the same thing, from a budgetary point of view, as a taxpayer subsidy.

Felix is entirely correct on this one.

By: Frwip Wed, 24 Oct 2012 18:04:19 +0000 I thought the concept of philanthropy was grounded in the broader concept of disinterested altruism. I see none of that with that Mr Paulson who’s essentially donating that money to himself and his own back yard.

The most charitable view one may conjure about that kind of “philanthropy” would be to call it “tax-exempt gardening and yard improvement”.

I wish I could that for the surroundings of my own little shack out there in the boondocks. But for some reasons, one of them having to do with not being a well-connected billionaire, I don’t think the IRS would take a very kind view of the whole deal…

By: littleG Wed, 24 Oct 2012 15:59:55 +0000 Timestamp.

By: littleG Wed, 24 Oct 2012 15:57:30 +0000 a) Had Mr.Paulson been a citizen of Scandinavian countries, he would never have been able to earn billions of dollars. Such a large customer base like America doesn’t exist there.

b) Even if he somehow earned billions of dollars there, he would have to pay high taxes on that income. My rough estimate is his wealth would be 1/10th of his current wealth. It takes money to earn lots of it.

c) So during the period that Mr.Paulson made all his wealth in the largest customer base in the world (only by financial gambling that is), average American was struggling to make his ends meet.

d) This day would never have come had it not been anti tax lobbyists take over Washington with their GOP friends.

By: Pointfinder Wed, 24 Oct 2012 15:10:01 +0000 Wow, Felix. Didn’t know you could be so sanctimonious.

By: Woltmann Wed, 24 Oct 2012 15:00:59 +0000 The only people grosser than the John Paulsons of the world are the parasitic politicians that enable them.

By: NativeNYer Wed, 24 Oct 2012 14:34:56 +0000 As a native New Yorker I am pretty happy about Paulson’s gift. Central Park is a huge, public place used by a wide variety of people for a wide variety of activities. There is no admission fee.
How many charity runs and walks take place in the park every year? A ton, as well as people exercising, reading, socializing, children playing, etc.
Paulson has donated to his local community in a way that benefits all.

By: SteveHamlin Wed, 24 Oct 2012 14:27:10 +0000 @ y2kurtus: “are we really bettor allocators of capital then they for the 90 – 99% of the wealth they will NEVER spend.”

Since a central plank of the modern Republican party is that fiscal deficits and the U.S. Government debt will ruin this country, and Paulson is vocally supporting Romney, then tax deductions for contributions that do not appear to be desperately needed is, according to his/their own policy, a terrible allocation of funds by Paulson. Has he not been listening to enough Pete Peterson? Why does Paulson hate America?

By: Ed62 Wed, 24 Oct 2012 11:34:13 +0000 No mention of Paulson’s very favorable ‘carried interest’ tax treatment which his donation to/investment in the Romney campaign is clearly designed to preserve??

That is the better story here.