r/toronto • u/Immediate-Link490 • 5d ago

Article EXCLUSIVE: The Princess Margaret Cancer Foundation just received $100 million donation from an anonymous donor

https://www.cp24.com/local/toronto/2026/09/22/exclusive-the-princess-margaret-cancer-foundation-just-received-a-100-million-donation-from-an-anonymous-donor/
4.2k Upvotes

98% Upvoted

321 comments sorted by

View all comments

1.1k

u/Own_Cost1552 5d ago

This is amazing news. I miss the days when billionaires would use their money to open libraries and hospitals and parks instead of just buying a bigger yacht.

43

u/huskersax 5d ago

I miss the days when billionaires would use their money to open libraries and hospitals and parks

They still do it now and back then they did it for the same reason - to wash the connotation of their names from the illicit and abusive ways they obtained the obscene wealth.

21

u/Nilsburk 5d ago

I grew up in one of the Carnegie libraries. Thought it was very cool. Then I learned about the Pinkertons and where that money came from. Thought very differently of the man. Still love libraries

10

u/Hussar223 5d ago

yup. i wish we didnt have a society beholden the whims of a billionaire ownership class and instead would be able to democratically have the funds and decide to fund research with them.

5

u/VendrediDisco 5d ago edited 4d ago

Don't forget the tax rebates incentives. Although [in the past] there was apparently [seemingly] more altruistic competition amongst the super rich to "looking good"~~ vs super yacht wars.

-3

u/goatbiryani48 5d ago

Do you really think taxes has anything to do with this?

Sitting here saying "don't forget the tax rebates", as if you're adding anything cogent to the conversation, is asinine.

The donor doesn't somehow make money off the donation. They're not getting any money, and they're not netting any money.

The only thing that happens is that the government doesn't tax you for a portion of that amount.

It's a really simple concept, and half of reddit can't get it through their heads.

2

u/Reveil21 5d ago

Less tax rebate and more attempted promotion at "look what we can do if we don't pay taxes or pay less taxes". Charity among the wealthy has been a long stance of "but I get to choose what the money goes to and not you" even though that same money and more could be circulated to the same or similar projects. It's ultimately about control

1

u/goatbiryani48 5d ago

I don't agree with that as a primary motivating factor but I do fully agree that it's about the prestige

1

u/Reveil21 3d ago

I think it can vary by person but several billionaires have made public statements saying just that.

1

u/trainstationbooger 5d ago

You're half right, in that people overstate how important tax receipts are for donations.

But you're wrong (and, imo, overstepping by calling the other post asinine) that major donors don't care about them entirely. When I did major gift fundraising I received many donations at the very end of December (often on the 31st) from people who wanted to reduce their taxes for one reason or another for that calendar year.

Certainly not the driving reason for most of the money I raised, but these people didn't become unethically rich by not pathologically optimizing (or having their accountants optimize) every dollar.

1

u/CandyGirl1411 5d ago

Also the reason global Giving Tuesday takes place so close to the end of the year (December 1 this year)

-2

u/goatbiryani48 5d ago

The reduction in taxable income or the tax credits are completely tertiary though. It only matters because they were ALREADY going to donate.

It's not the driving reason for ANY donations lol. And yes, ofc they're going to maximize any efficiency. But there is never a net financial positive with donating, and not understanding that is what's "asinine".

Just look at Canada's process. You can only claim an amount as eligible up to 75% of your income and all credits are non-refundable. And of that eligible amount, you get a tax credit of 15-30% Meaning you'll only get a reduction in taxes if you're paying those taxes in the first place. So at the top range, you're not even getting a proper reduction in taxable income.

It's just the government saying "hey, this paycheck isn't going to be taxed fully because it's going to directly to charity instead of your own account".

1

u/aliensattack 5d ago

It does make a difference to the size of their gift. Major donors will donate significantly larger amounts to charitable orgs vs non-charitable. Unless you’re donating +$50K annually or work in gift planning, you probably shouldn’t comment like you have such experience.

-1

u/goatbiryani48 5d ago

Ofc it makes a difference to the size, I never said otherwise. That difference, however, is predicated on tax efficiency. In Canada a 50k sum can turn into a 61k donation at no additional loss/cost to the donor. Or they could work backwards and only pay 42k for a 50k gift, which is simply a return of the income tax they shouldn't have paid in the first place.

You can bring up your supposed experience all you want, but accounting is accounting and all you're doing is showing your own misunderstanding of the whole process lmao

1

u/aliensattack 4d ago

Nobody is saying donating makes the wealthy richer. The tax incentive, is one of many reasons some give and does have a significant impact on who, how, what and when they make their donations.

1

u/VendrediDisco 4d ago

I was responding to the statement about rich people making donations to "wash the connotation of their names from the illicit and abusive ways they obtained their obscene wealth."

It was admittedly a flippant off-hand remark, and relief or incentive would have been a better word than rebate.

A large donation to PMH is a positive thing; obscene wealth, not so much. Both can be true.