I actually tried to donate to them, and they claimed my card was declined. So does NewEgg. I think some of these processors aren’t equipped to handle debit cards, apparently, since both Amazon.com and CareerVillage have proven capable of “shutting up and taking my money”.
Further pity, the Rolling Jubilee had stopped taking funds for the year. They’re a favorite of mine: they buy up defaulted, second-hand debts of the housing and medical kinds that cripple people so damn hard, and then just abolish them. People who were being hounded by collectors get a call and find out their catastrophic debts are just gone.
Perhaps you should get an actual credit card as well as your debit card, for use with vendors and charities that can’t handle debit cards.
(I appreciate that there are a number of possible reasons why you might be unwilling or unable to do that. They may be very good reasons. It’s probably worth spending a few minutes, if you haven’t already, considering whether they are good enough to outweigh being unable to donate to entities you would like to donate to, etc.)
I had no problems donating to GiveDirectly with my debit card; OTOH now I’m having trouble giving to CFAR via PayPal using the same card, which had never happened before to me. (I guess I exceeded my daily quota for Internet purchases.)
The thing is that it’s supposed to function as a Check Card, able to be swiped as both credit or debit. This is actually the first time I’ve ever found anyone who won’t take it.
That sounds like it might be a frequently asked question! Let’s check Rolling Jubilee’s FAQ… yup!
Will a gift from Rolling Jubilee create a tax burden for debtors?
The Rolling Jubilee was created in consultation with a team of attorneys. They have thoroughly researched the tax implications and do not believe that beneficiaries are obligated to pay taxes on debts the Rolling Jubilee abolishes in this manner. It is the Rolling Jubilee’s position that it is making a tax-free gift to the people whose debt it is abolishing. See strikedebt.org/taxanalyst for an interview about Rolling Jubilee with the USA’s top-ranked tax lawyer.
Point being, if you can think of a difficulty in the solution of a problem in two seconds, then the people actually working to solve the problem have almost certainly either anticipated or run into the difficulty and have dealt with it.
Point being, it’s not up to the Rolling Jubilee to decide. It’s up to the IRS to decide.
If the Rolling Jubilee wants to be serious about it, it needs to get a Determination Letter from the IRS stating that yes, IRS will treat these debt cancellations as tax-free gifts.
Yup. Have a look at that interview with the top tax lawyer to see how that will likely play out. (Short version: 1. Medical debt is likely much easier to forgive tax-free than mortgage debt. 2. The debt forgiveness is currently so small that it will probably be lost in the shuffle without the IRS wanting to devote resources to making a determination.)
The point of my comment was really that if James_Miller had posed the question out of genuine curiosity instead of as a rhetorical side-swipe, he could have found the answer.
Fantastic! Now I can escape the tax liability on my paycheck by having my employer pay my debts rather than directly paying me a salary. Or, rather than contribute to MIRI and have some of this money go to salaries which are taxed I could instead payoff some of the debt of MIRI employees.
Sorry for the sarcasm, but for someone who has studied a bit of U.S. tax law it’s obvious that the IRS can’t allow Person A to payoff the debt of Person B without there being any tax consequences. Doing so would just create too massive a loophole for tax avoidance.
I think Rolling Jubilee has a better case for forgiving debt as an “exempt purpose” than you’re giving them credit for. In any event, EY noted recently (on Facebook, possibly?) that the legal system is made of people, not words. An obvious cheat won’t cut it.
(I can hardly complain about the sarcasm, having dished some snark of my own. It’s all good.)
It seems that (1) in practice, so far they apparently don’t, but (2) no one is quite sure whether they should. (Or, rather, a few people are sure they shouldn’t, a few more are sure they should, and lots of people aren’t sure.)
I actually tried to donate to them, and they claimed my card was declined. So does NewEgg. I think some of these processors aren’t equipped to handle debit cards, apparently, since both Amazon.com and CareerVillage have proven capable of “shutting up and taking my money”.
Further pity, the Rolling Jubilee had stopped taking funds for the year. They’re a favorite of mine: they buy up defaulted, second-hand debts of the housing and medical kinds that cripple people so damn hard, and then just abolish them. People who were being hounded by collectors get a call and find out their catastrophic debts are just gone.
A potentially easy way around the problem is to donate through GiveWell. Failing that, you could try via Venmo.
Damn!
Bloody hell!
Perhaps you should get an actual credit card as well as your debit card, for use with vendors and charities that can’t handle debit cards.
(I appreciate that there are a number of possible reasons why you might be unwilling or unable to do that. They may be very good reasons. It’s probably worth spending a few minutes, if you haven’t already, considering whether they are good enough to outweigh being unable to donate to entities you would like to donate to, etc.)
I had no problems donating to GiveDirectly with my debit card; OTOH now I’m having trouble giving to CFAR via PayPal using the same card, which had never happened before to me. (I guess I exceeded my daily quota for Internet purchases.)
The thing is that it’s supposed to function as a Check Card, able to be swiped as both credit or debit. This is actually the first time I’ve ever found anyone who won’t take it.
http://i.imgur.com/ByU9iq0.jpg
Don’t they then get a call from the IRS saying they have to pay taxes on this gift?
That sounds like it might be a frequently asked question! Let’s check Rolling Jubilee’s FAQ… yup!
Point being, if you can think of a difficulty in the solution of a problem in two seconds, then the people actually working to solve the problem have almost certainly either anticipated or run into the difficulty and have dealt with it.
Point being, it’s not up to the Rolling Jubilee to decide. It’s up to the IRS to decide.
If the Rolling Jubilee wants to be serious about it, it needs to get a Determination Letter from the IRS stating that yes, IRS will treat these debt cancellations as tax-free gifts.
Yup. Have a look at that interview with the top tax lawyer to see how that will likely play out. (Short version: 1. Medical debt is likely much easier to forgive tax-free than mortgage debt. 2. The debt forgiveness is currently so small that it will probably be lost in the shuffle without the IRS wanting to devote resources to making a determination.)
The point of my comment was really that if James_Miller had posed the question out of genuine curiosity instead of as a rhetorical side-swipe, he could have found the answer.
Fantastic! Now I can escape the tax liability on my paycheck by having my employer pay my debts rather than directly paying me a salary. Or, rather than contribute to MIRI and have some of this money go to salaries which are taxed I could instead payoff some of the debt of MIRI employees.
Sorry for the sarcasm, but for someone who has studied a bit of U.S. tax law it’s obvious that the IRS can’t allow Person A to payoff the debt of Person B without there being any tax consequences. Doing so would just create too massive a loophole for tax avoidance.
I think Rolling Jubilee has a better case for forgiving debt as an “exempt purpose” than you’re giving them credit for. In any event, EY noted recently (on Facebook, possibly?) that the legal system is made of people, not words. An obvious cheat won’t cut it.
(I can hardly complain about the sarcasm, having dished some snark of my own. It’s all good.)
It seems that (1) in practice, so far they apparently don’t, but (2) no one is quite sure whether they should. (Or, rather, a few people are sure they shouldn’t, a few more are sure they should, and lots of people aren’t sure.)