them over and over. Look at T's foundation, using money in it to pay attorney fees, set up non profits and pay yourself. When young I always heard
it takes money to make money, when young I didn't understand, but at a certain age you understand. I thought it was by compounding interest, but those days are gone, remember when even meager saving accounts made money?? When they get so much money they make more when asleep than most of us make in a year or lifetime , by making money from unscrupulous means.
un·scru·pu·lous
ˌənˈskro͞opyələs/
adjective
adjective:
unscrupulous
- having or showing no moral principles; not honest or fair.
synonyms: unprincipled, unethical, immoral, conscienceless, shameless, reprobate, exploitative, corrupt, dishonest, dishonorable, deceitful, devious, underhanded, unsavory, disreputable, evil, wicked, villainous, Machiavellian; More
informalcrooked, shady, hinky;
dateddastardly
"we didn't want to believe that someone in our group could be
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman is looking into why Eric Trump’s charity paid more than $1 million to use Trump Organization properties for charity events in recent years, after boasting to donors that the family’s assets were being used at no cost.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-06-09/eric-trump-charity-payments-being-examined-by-new-york-ag
and
Forbes also reported that even though donors to the Eric Trump Foundation had been told their cash was going to help kids with cancer, it re-donated more than $500,000 to other charities, "many of which were connected to Trump family members or interests, including at least four groups that subsequently paid to hold golf tournaments at Trump courses."
My responses to your remarks are not so much to outright refute your theme or comments. Rather they are to put a bit more "neutral" perspective to the discussion. I think I agree with the contextual theme of your OP, but the tone of it is definitely not with which I can concur.
When young I always heard it takes money to make money
You and everyone else heard that because the most effective way to make money is to go into business, and the only way to do that is to have some resources to contribute to the business entity. Quite literally, every business begins life with at least one of the two following accounting entries:
Dr. Cash (or other asset)
Cr. Equity
To record contribution from owner(s) of assets provided to commence business.
Dr. Cash (or other asset)
Cr. Loans/Notes Payable (or some other liability account)
To record cash received and corresponding debt assumed to commence business.
The cash (or other asset(s)) come from the owner's own pocket or those of investors or lenders.
I thought it was by compounding interest, but those days are gone,
That too is a way to make money, but one must have money to invest somewhere so that it can in turn compound. It's not the fastest way to make money, but it is a way to make it.
remember when even meager saving accounts made money??
They still do. It's not much money, and to your point, the rate now is nothing compared to what it used to be. That it isn't has everything to do with the prime interest rate having been pushed low as a way to spur lending/borrowing and to combat inflationary pressures.
It's worth noting that were you and I to get "decent" interest rates on savings accounts, the national debt (government debt), and specifically the interest payment the government must make (about 6% of the total income tax haul) would be dramatically more than it is right now.
The consumer side of the matter is really quite straightforward:
- Citizens can have low interest rates and thereby use more of their disposable money to pay for principal rather than interest, thus enjoying "nicer" stuff or have higher interest rates and buy "less nice" stuff. ("Less" in all senses of the word.)
One of the most significant consequences of that is
the size of home in which most people live.
In 2013, the average size of new houses built increased to an all-time high of 2,679 square feet (see blue line in top chart), and the median size new home set a new record of 2,491 square feet (see red line in chart). Over the last 40 years, the average home has increased in size by more than 1,000 square feet, from an average size of 1,660 square feet in 1973 (earliest year available from Census) to 2,679 square feet last year. Likewise, the median-size home has increased in size by almost 1,000 square feet, from 1,525 square feet in 1973 to 2,491 last year. In percentage terms, the average home size has increased by 61.4% since 1973, while the median home size increased by 63.3%.


That people live in larger homes these days has a lot to do with the low interest rates. More of "Bud and Mary Main Street's" mortgage payment goes to pay for the house itself and not interest on the loan they took to buy the house. To get a rough visual sense of how that plays out in a "typical American" locality (
i.e., not a city (not the burbs outside of one) like D.C., NYC, etc. where new "standard home" development doesn't really happen) click the following link:
http://davemeir.com/yourrochester/w...ighborhoods-of-northwest-rochester-minnesota/
As goes savings, however, yes, one must, these days, employ more "sophisticated" means -- more involved than merely depositing it into a passbook savings account -- of investing one's money to grow it into a "tidy nest egg." In and of itself, that's not such a terrible thing. What is "bad" about it, however, is that those means, unlike a passbook savings account, are not insured, thus "Bud and Mary" must, in the 21st century, assume far greater investment risk to earn the same ROI as their parents/grandparents did by merely maintaining a savings account.
New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman is looking into why Eric Trump’s charity paid more than $1 million to use Trump Organization properties for charity events
That whole organization structure interplay and exchange among a triune of related-party individuals, for-profit and not-for-profit organizations and how people use the tax code to minimize their tax burdens [1] (not exactly the same as actually making money) does, insofar as, though legal, is without question a willful attempt to contravene the spirit of the laws that when "played in concert" make such hijinks possible....Well, yes, that definitely meets what I'd call unscrupulous.
One simple example -- that is, not nearly as complex as the foundation, charity, business, private individual scheme -- of that sort of thing is the mortgage deduction for boats. That deduction was made available because there used to be (I don't know if there still are) a fair number of modest income folks in places like FL, CA, and plenty of other places on the water (inland or ocean) found it was quite nice and notably less expensive to live on a houseboat rather than in a house.
The value proposition is still there, and there's no reason to begrudge folks for living in a house boat and deny them the mortgage interest deduction.
Where the unethicality comes into play is that it allows really well off folks to take a mortgage deduction for buying what is purely a pleasure craft, a purchase that is primarily for entertainment, usually personal entertainment with friends, notwithstanding the few occasions they may also use it for some sort of ostensibly business-related purpose.
What does that result in? It results in people buying boats like these...
...and taking deduction for it. To qualify, the boat must have cooking, sleeping and toilet facilities and be the security for the loan one takes to buy it. (Getting to take the mortgage deduction isn't quite as simple as I've made it seem here -- there are "phase outs" one must avoid -- but with the appropriate tax planning, it's not all that hard either.)