Charity Donation: the ultimate tax loophole

No wonder that inequality is rising - the rich, and even more so the super rich, can in effect 'privatise' their tax dollars by squirrelling their fortunes into 'foundations' and 'trusts' that prevent proper inheritance taxes to be applied. Can Soros' institute really be called a charity? Who decides what the money is spent on? Who manages the foundation/charity? Why can ordinary workers not apply the same to their pay-cheques? Maybe a foundation to care for the elderly (their ailing parents) or their pets? And then call themselves 'philantropists' as well?
CNBC

Global Citizen: clever labelling, but what say do 'Citizens' have?

What should one read into the name of this organization? Do the 'Citizens' have any say? Who controls the money? What benefit do the performers enjoy? They may work for free or not, but in any case they should PAY for the privilege of being associated with what they consider a good cause (otherwise they have at the very least the benefit of free advertising). Apart from that, the easy access that promoters or NGO's and Celebrities get to politicians is cause for concern and another reason why Direct Democracy needs to be introduced as a safeguard to any potential abuses of power.

CNBC

Philanthropy no substitute for a fair society

Attempts to push for more philanthropy as a substitute for a fair society miss the point. If a system is broken it is useless to patch things up with band-aids. The (purported) need for more charity by the 'haves' just demonstrates that something is wrong with the way the benefits of the economy are distributed. There will always be individuals that will need help but charities should not be a permanent and growing substitute for a better society that needs reform of the political and economic model.