If I am reading the Wikipedia article correctly (and if the article itself is correct), the benefactor does pay tax on that 5%.
However, if the OP had kept his startup in his own name, then at the time he sold it, he would have had to pay capital-gains tax on all of his profit, that year. (And then he would have been able to spend the remainder on whatever he wanted, that year.)
$1.1 million/year sounds like a lot, but he is living in an apartment in New York city.
edit: Oh, -4 on the mods. I'll make a note to put flashing lights around it the next time I use irony to comment on a man who thinks a $1.1m/yr income is "living simply".
Not countering your central point really but I'd note that the distribution is pretty skewed[1], i.e. the 300k+ group is a plurality in some neighborhoods.
It's not about altruism or lack of it. Nor ultimately even saving money in taxes. It's about having enough, so there's no point in owning more than you need.
He obviously has to live somewhere and eat, so it's only pragmatic to arrange that he will get what he needs but, I assume, not really much more.
That was my first thought as well, but in reality, there's more available for whatever charity eventually gets the money. Granted, he could have donated it all outright, but there's something to be said for having some income so you can work on things you love, including giving back. I'm guessing that for someone like Derek, his time and expertise is more valuable than his money :)
Fair point. However, if that's the case, why not leave more of it in the trust - he's automatically "blowing" 35% of that 5% (350k+) in taxes every year.
Doesn't exactly sound like "living simply" to me.