http://dagblog.com/link/foundations-set-rich-are-increasingly-using-charity-loophole-35633 Comments for "Foundations Set Up by the Rich Are Increasingly Using Charity Loophole" en http://dagblog.com/comment/321453#comment-321453 <a id="comment-321453"></a> <p><em>In reply to <a href="http://dagblog.com/link/foundations-set-rich-are-increasingly-using-charity-loophole-35633">Foundations Set Up by the Rich Are Increasingly Using Charity Loophole</a></em></p> <div class="field field-name-comment-body field-type-text-long field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p> </p><div class="media_embed"> <blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-conversation="none" height="" width=""> <p dir="ltr" lang="en" xml:lang="en">DAFs have no distribution requirements (another loophole) so $ can just stay in investment accounts rather than getting into community. These vehicles are meant to serve nonprofits, not investment managers. The ACE Act would fix both issues but DAF sponsors have lobbied against.</p> — John Arnold (@JohnArnoldFndtn) <a href="https://twitter.com/JohnArnoldFndtn/status/1585715411672178688?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 27, 2022</a></blockquote> <script async="" charset="utf-8" height="" src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" width=""></script></div> <p> </p><div class="media_embed"> <blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-conversation="none" height="" width=""> <p dir="ltr" lang="en" xml:lang="en">Re the loophole, what’s in it for the donors? They just want to help out their investment managers?</p> — Gary Wallace (@ChetSucks) <a href="https://twitter.com/ChetSucks/status/1585729675589869568?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 27, 2022</a></blockquote> <script async="" charset="utf-8" height="" src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" width=""></script></div> <p> </p><div class="media_embed"> <blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-conversation="none" height="" width=""> <p dir="ltr" lang="en" xml:lang="en">It lets them spend the money in causes they care about instead of ones that politicians care about.</p> — Jorge Emrys Landivar (@__TheBaron__) <a href="https://twitter.com/__TheBaron__/status/1585722276116299780?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 27, 2022</a></blockquote> <script async="" charset="utf-8" height="" src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" width=""></script></div> <p> </p><div class="media_embed"> <blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-conversation="none" height="" width=""> <p dir="ltr" lang="en" xml:lang="en">Do you think requiring that 5% is useful? Presumably *some* foundations actually think they have better giving opportunities later</p> — Hungry Cavill (@napoleon_yolo) <a href="https://twitter.com/napoleon_yolo/status/1585715444987600896?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 27, 2022</a></blockquote> <script async="" charset="utf-8" height="" src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" width=""></script></div> <p> </p><div class="media_embed"> <blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-conversation="none" height="" width=""> <p dir="ltr" lang="en" xml:lang="en">I have much less faith that foundation managers will be more aggressive in giving as more time goes by, particularly after the funder passes on.</p> — John Arnold (@JohnArnoldFndtn) <a href="https://twitter.com/JohnArnoldFndtn/status/1585716156895268865?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 27, 2022</a></blockquote> <script async="" charset="utf-8" height="" src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" width=""></script></div> </div></div></div> Fri, 28 Oct 2022 00:38:56 +0000 artappraiser comment 321453 at http://dagblog.com