I noticed an interesting paradox in the news about the philanthropy of major billionaires. Elon Musk seems to have found himself in an awkward situation with his foundation. According to an investigation, his charitable organization failed to meet the minimum distribution obligations last year — the shortfall was $421 million.

This is not the first time. Looking at the history, the picture is quite grim: in 2021, the shortfall was $41 million; in 2022, it was already $234 million; and now it’s approaching $500 million. Meanwhile, the foundation’s assets amount to about $9 billion. It turns out that Musk’s philanthropy operates strangely — the money is there, but for some reason, they’re not in a hurry to distribute it.

An accounting professor from Ohio State University noted that the distribution reaches a minimum only to avoid penalties. That is, the foundation operates on the principle of “the minimum to avoid punishment.” Interestingly, Musk himself spends only two hours a week at the foundation over three years, and there is actually no staff at all.

Even more curious is how exactly the money is distributed. Most of Musk’s philanthropy goes to organizations connected to him personally. In 2023, he transferred $137 million to a fund managed by his close partners, which oversees a private school in Texas near his companies. It turns out that Musk’s philanthropy is more like shifting money between his own projects.

And what’s especially funny is that Musk constantly talks about the need to cut government spending, criticizes the tax authorities, and proposes creating a government efficiency department. A person who demands strict control over the federal budget manages his own charity quite… creatively. If the situation weren’t so serious, it would be funny. Meanwhile, if Musk does not pay the remaining amount by the end of 2024, he faces a significant penalty from the U.S. tax authorities.

Overall, the story of Musk and his philanthropy is a good example of how super-rich people exploit tax loopholes. But in his case, it looks especially hypocritical, given his constant calls for austerity and control over government funds.