Why do so many NFL (pro football) players have charities?
"In addition to tax-related benefits, one answer may be that it helps them avoid being inundated with requests to support other foundations. Most charities have access to public records that indicate potential donors based on income and demographic. They can use that info to solicit for donations. ""Hey NFL Player, you have lots of money, and we have cute starving emus that really need your help!"" Here's a blurb from Foundation Source about some of the benefits to starting your own foundation.  Get an Immediate Tax Deduction, but Give Later: You get the tax deduction when the foundation is funded, then make your charitable   gifts over time. Leave a Lasting Legacy: Foundations set up in perpetuity can burnish your name far beyond your lifetime. Because gifts are made   from an endowment that generates investment revenue, the total gifts   made by the foundation can far surpass the actual funding. Be Taken More Seriously as a Philanthropist: A foundation imparts a gravitas that causes people to take your philanthropy more seriously,   due to the structured, organized approach you employ for your giving. Sidestep Unsolicited Requests: When you focus your foundation on specific giving areas, your mission statement can be used to politely   turn down off-target funding requests. Deepen and Focus Your Philanthropy: Whereas individual donors often spread their giving among as many causes as possible, the formalized   structure of a foundation often encourages donors to narrow their   focus to specific causes. Build a Better Family: As family members take on philanthropic research, present their findings to the board, participate in the   decision-making process, and track results, they hone skills that will   serve them for years to come. Tax-Deductible Grants to Individuals in Need: A private foundation allows you to provide emergency assistance directly to individuals   using dollars for which you’ve already received a tax deduction. Run Charitable Programs Without Setting Up a Separate Nonprofit: Direct charitable activities are IRS-approved programs that permit   foundations to directly fund and carry out their own projects. Pay Charitable Expenses: All legitimate and reasonable expenses incurred in carrying out the foundation’s charitable mission can be   paid by the foundation and will count toward the annual minimum   distribution requirement. Provide Loans Instead of Grants: When used to support a charitable purpose, private foundations can employ loans, loan guarantees, and   even equity investments, which are paid back (potentially with   interest), so you can recycle your philanthropic capital for other   charitable causes. https://www.foundationsource.com/resources/library/top-10-advantages-of-a-private-foundation/ There's a similar list here on the website for an attorney that specializes in philanthropy and non-profits. I won't copy/paste that list as it's similar, but I wanted to provide an additional source confirming the above benefits. This link contains some disadvantages as well.  http://www.hurwitassociates.com/l_start_pros.php" "BobbyScon's answer really covers this, but perhaps isn't sufficiently explicit.  Reason 1 of the quotation is the largest, by far: Get an Immediate Tax Deduction, but Give Later: You get the tax deduction when the foundation is funded, then make your charitable gifts over time. Having a ""personal"" foundation means that you make donations whenever it is appropriate from a personal finance point of view, but then actually perform the charitable giving in a time that is convenient. So you fund the foundation on Dec. 31, say; that gets the money out of your hands, and out of your taxable income, for the prior tax year.  Then you're not required to do anything else with that money until a time and place where it's convenient to you. In many cases, they set it up not as a foundation but as a Donor Advised Fund.  These are of late becoming extremely popular among the wealthy, largely the ease of setting them up and the above. The other major advantage of a Donor Advised Fund is simplicity in tax season: you have exactly one charitable donation recipient, with one receipt (or one set of them if you donate over time)."
We offer our players a wide range of many luxury casino games, including the latest releases and those designed exclusively for GD2 ONE players. Whether it's the premium online slots or the exclusive online casino malaysia tables that will fascinate you, we have everything more than controlled. Would you like to be able to win one of the largest accumulated prizes available online but with very low wagering requirements? If so, you're in the right place! In GD2 ONE we have so many slot games with extraordinary jackpots that you will not know which to choose in your quest for the dream boat. "Until you get some financial education, you will be vulnerable to people wanting your money.  Once you are educated, you will be able to live a tidy life off this-- which is exactly why this amount was awarded to you, rather than some other amount.    They gave you enough money.  This is not a lottery win.  I mean ""financial counselors"" who will want to help you with strategies to invest your money.  Every one will promise your money will grow.   The latter case describes every full-service broker, e.g. what will happen if you walk into EdwardJones.  This industry has a long tradition of charmingly selling investments which significantly underperform the market, and making their money by kickbacks (sales commissions) from those investments (which is why they significantly underperform.)   They also offer products which are unnecessarily complex meant to confuse customers and hide fees. One mark of trouble is ""early exit"" fees, which they need to recoup the sales commission they already paid out.  Unfortunately, one of those people is you.  You are treating this like a windfall, falling into old, often-repeated cliché of ""lottery-win thinking"".  ""Gosh, there's so much money there, what could go wrong?""  This always ends in disaster and destitution, on top of your other woes.  It's not a windfall.  They gave you just enough money to live on - barely. Because these lawyers and judges do this all day every day, and they know exactly how much capital will replace a lifelong salary, and if anything you got cheated a bit.  Read on.   You don't want to feel like greedy Scrooge, hoarding every penny.  I get that.  But generous spending won't fix that.  What will is financial education, and once you have real understanding and certainty about your financial situation, you will be able to both provide for yourself and be giving in a sensible manner.   This stuff isn't taught in school.  If it was, there'd be a lot more millionaires, because wealth isn't about luck, it's about intelligent management of money.  Good advisers do exist. They're hard to find.  Good advisors work only one way: for a flat rate or hourly fee.  This is called a ""Fee-only advisor"".  S/he never takes commissions.  Beware of brokers who normally work on commission but will happily take an upfront fee.  Even if they promise to hand you their commission check, they're still recommending you into the same sub-par investments because that's their training! I get the world of finance is extremely confusing and it's hard to know where to start.  Just make one leap of faith with me: You can learn this.  One place it's not confusing: University endowments.  They get windfalls just like you, and they need to manage it to support them for a very long time, just like you.  Endowments are very closely watched by the smartest people in finance -- no lottery fever here. It's agreed by all that there is one best way to invest an endowment.  And it's mandatory by law.  An endowment is a chunk of money (say, $1.2 million) that must fund a purpose (say, a math professorship or ""chair"") in perpetuity.  You're not planning to live quite that long, but when you're in your 20's, the investment strategy is the same.  The endowment is designed to generate income of some amount, on average, over the long term.  You can draw from the endowment even in ""down years"".  The rule of thumb is 4-6% is a sustainable rate that won't overtax the endowment (usually, but you have to keep an eye on it). On $1.2M, that's $48,000 to $72,000 per year.  Not half bad.  See, I told you it could work.  Read Jane Austen?  Mister Darcy, referred to as a gentleman of 10,000 pounds -- meaning his assets were many times that, but they yield income of £10,000 a year.  Same idea.  Keep in mind that you need to pay taxes. But if you plan your investments so you're holding them more than a year, you're in the much lower 0-10-15% capital gains tax bracket.  So, here's where I'd like you to go.   I would say more, but this will give you quite an education by itself.  Say you gave all your money to me.  And said ""Your nonprofit needs an executive director. Fund it. In perpetuity.""  I'd say ""Thank you"", ""you're right"", and I'd create an endowment and invest it about like this.  That is fairly close to the standard mix you'll find in most endowments, because that is what's considered ""prudent"" under endowment law (UPMIFA). I'd carry all that in a Vanguard or Fidelity account and follow Bogle's advice on limiting fees.  That said, dollar-cost-averaging is not a suicide pact, and bonds are ugly right now (for reason Suze Orman describes) and real estate seems really bubbly right now... so I'd back out of those for now.   I'd aim to draw about $60k/year out of it or 5%, and on average, in the very long term, the capital should grow. I would adjust it downward somewhat if the next few years are a hard recession, to avoid taking too much out of the capital... and resist the urge to take more out in boom years, because that is your hedge against the next recession. Over 7% is not prudent per the law (absent very reasonable reasons). UPMIFA doesn't apply to you, but I'd act as if it did.  A very reasonable reason to take more than 7% would be to shift investment into a house for living in.  I would aim for a duplex/triplex to also have income from the property, if the numbers made sense, which they often don't in California, but that's another question.  At your financial level -- never, never, never give cash to a charity.  You will get marked as a ""soft target"" and every commercial fundraiser on earth will stalk you for the rest of your life. At your level, you open a Donor Advised Fund, and let the Fund do your giving for you.  Once you've funded it (which is tax deductible) you later tell them which charities to fund when.  They screen out fake charities and protect your identity. I discuss DAFs at length here.  Now when ""charities"" harass you for an immediate handout, just tell them that's not how you support charities." "Is there any way out from letting the money disappear into a black hole? But that is the whole point of insurance; the ""black hole"" = the insurance company.  That's how they stay in business.  You are giving up your money to them, but you get something in return:  a guarantee of financial rescue if something happens to you medically.  Considering how much health care costs can cost in the U.S., this is not insubstantial. To the degree that you might be able to divert some of that money out of the ""black hole"" and back into your pocket, or a charity, would be equivalent to reducing your premium costs.  There are few ways to do that, but none too significantly.  E.g., sometimes plans have health programs that customers can participate in and get a small discount, etc.  But for the most part, you are stuck.  Welcome to the U.S. Health Care System. One tiny tip:  see if your school offers a free flu shot this fall; many do, it seems, so there is $15 saved.  The school's human resources office would probably know about this." &gt;No, it has the intellectual rigor of saying that if you want to claim something then you have to prove it, not parrot some propaganda that has been repeated endlessly without any proof.  'where's my proof? where's my proof?'   You're the one arguing for a change away from the status quo here, to something that not only is entirely untested but *requires everyone to do it at once* AND *everyone to think just like you do* for it to 'work properly'. It's nothing but hypotheticals, yet you're saying the burden of proof is on me to 'prove' that *your* hypothetical scenarios won't work?   That's not a thing you can do, you can't prove a negative. All i can do is say look around at all the free markets and stateless populations we have now living in perfect harmony with each other and the environment. Oh wait. They don't exist. Because they don't work in the real world.   Any advantage is going to be used to bludgeon the competition with until you have a monopoly/quasi-state, and it relies on the population being informed in and believing in the system enough to make a conscious effort to not buy the cheaper goods at the store with the bad business practices, or potentially drive further to a different store if it's the store doing the bad practice!   &gt;Royal charter. Free market. You can only have one.   So you're saying there can never be a truly free market then? Because it strikes me that companies trading without regulatory oversight (as the British, Dutch, Portuguese, Spanish etc.) did is pretty much as close as we can get. They made huge, huge profits of course, but at the cost of a lot of human misery. In fact you can look at a lot of what the British did in the 19th century as semi-case studies for this as they had a proper hard on for the 'free market'. No government bailout for the famine in Ireland because they didn't want to 'Foster dependency on the state', let private charities do it instead (look it up, people donated but not anywhere near enough to alleviate the human misery - it also got all caught up in religious bullshit which didn't help matters). You had little kids getting their arms ripped off by textile looms for fucks sake, people working 14 hour days. But it made more money than working in the fields, so #worth, right?   &gt;In what way? People don't suddenly cease to have resources to deal with these things just because their resources are not forcibly centralized. That doesn't follow.  Because the pooling of vast resources for disaster relief is something that states do? Because there are efficiencies of scale to be had with the Military? The US Military was a huge player in the disaster response to disasters like the boxing day tsunami and hurricane katrina. You have NGOs like MERLIN and the Red Cross doing great work- and very quickly, but they just [can't provide the same resources a modern navy can in the same time frame](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Unified_Assistance). It turns out you face a lot of the same problems in a modern battlefield as you do in a humanitarian crisis. Again, charities just don't get the funding to do this sort of thing on the same scale. There was a huge amount of funding dropped on the 2004 tsunami from many countries, but you can't build a hospital ship in two weeks, or a nuclear reactor to provide monumental amounts of fresh water, or the helicopters and operational procedures to tie everything together. Many thousands more would have died without their presence.   &gt;what evidence or reason you have to believe that hundreds of millions of people would have died in a century without governments.  This is my point, neither you nor I have any evidence to base this off rather than a tendency for people to be utter bastards to each other, looking at history. You're postulating that if all governments dissipated in a puff of smoke, there *wouldn't* be huge conflict in the resulting power vacuum?   &gt;“Anarchists did not try to carry out genocide...  Yeah, good one. There weren't any Anarchists in a position to do any of that. Great straw man.   and that statement by Higgs is just that - a statement. WHY is the burden of proof on the 'statists'? It's the Anarchists who are arguing for the change in the status Quo. You're the one making the claim that it would be a better system here with nothing to back it up but 'well people probably wouldn't start murdering each other', pretty low bar there tbh.  But if you want reasoning, see my previous point - if it's such a better system, if people won't exploit every advantage they can get and distort the free market, if people wouldn't try and subvert the system for their own personal gain - why do we have states right now? Would any Anarchist 'state' (region?) not have simply outperformed neighbours if it's so much more efficient? If cash donations are not deductable, stock contributions aren't either and I believe the same rules apply as for a private party. Pay to play in business is normal and completely ethical.  You want to be in the Yellow pages, you have to pay.   You want to be associated with an elite group of like businesses and share leads, you have to pay.   You want to be in the Chamber of Commerce, you have to pay.  There's tons of businesses that are in invite only groups that cost $10,000+ a year and $300 a month just for sharing leads and those leads are worth the cost. Looks like it stands for Accident and Emergency.   Yes, that is a grey aeea, similar to mental illness, disability, old age of those who cannot afford help, terminal sicknesses and autism. My heart goes out to them, while my brain calculates the cost to the national bottom line. For example, per one study, about 80% of emergency care is spent on extending the life of a terminally ill patient by only three months on a sick bed. That money could serve millions avoid sickness.   I don't know what to say on this topic since it sits at the intersection of the current great national debate.  Edit - Add to this list addicts, orphans, homeless, victims of crime and others I may have missed. It's like collecting car insurance when you've had an accident.  If you want a good analogy it's like having an accident and then some asshole reporter claims it's unfair that the policy paid for it because you made more than some arbitrary amount of money last year.