• Serinus@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    15
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    9 months ago

    as a tax write-off.

    People DO understand that the top marginal rate is 37%, right? So when she donates to charity she pays 63% of that charity and gets $0 back directly. It’s still spending money.

    Unless she’s getting a ~70% kickback of the money from the charity. But that’s highly illegal. You have to be president to get away with something like that.

    • li10@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      9 months ago

      It’s probably not for tax reasons, but is 100% publicity. That’s all Taylor Swift™️ is.

      She is essentially just a business that makes some decent commercial music, uses PR to develop a strong following and then monetizes the product.

      I think her whole thing is fake and she just likes being the center of attention, not far off the Kardashians.

      • polygon6121@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        9 months ago

        Thanks, that’s a better way to put it. It is all in the interest of business. It obviously works great, because here we are discussing it, and some of us praising it… !

    • raynethackery@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      9 months ago

      The top marginal tax rate in 1947 was 91%. That was for incomes over $200,000. We have been led down the garden path.