Much philanthropy is a routinized exchange between salaried bureaucrats(newyorker.com)
newyorker.com
Much philanthropy is a routinized exchange between salaried bureaucrats
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2022/05/30/would-the-world-be-better-off-without-philanthropists-paul-vallely-emma-saunders-hastings
264 comments
Getting a 3.5x multiplier for a charity that is mostly waste puts you more or less back at 1x.
Which is not to say you shouldn't help people. It is to say that the best way to help may not be registered and legislated charity. Mutual aid is a powerful thing - you can enable communities around you to be self-determining, rather than funding a bunch of salaried assholes to decide what they need.
Go find a mutual aid organization near you. Set up a big chunky recurring contribution. And if you're feeling intrepid, get to know some of the people and learn how you can help out on the ground.
Which is not to say you shouldn't help people. It is to say that the best way to help may not be registered and legislated charity. Mutual aid is a powerful thing - you can enable communities around you to be self-determining, rather than funding a bunch of salaried assholes to decide what they need.
Go find a mutual aid organization near you. Set up a big chunky recurring contribution. And if you're feeling intrepid, get to know some of the people and learn how you can help out on the ground.
And what organisations, pray tell, actually need the money and would be visible to a normal human being in a country that isn't shattered by war? Most of the large charities have disgustingly paid CEO's and I can't be the only one that gets a sour taste in their mouth when I give an amount of money to them and realise this CEO receives 100k-1m in compensation while actual human beings starve in the streets or freeze to death.
I worked for several different charities for a few years. Supposedly "good ones", a couple of big names. After what I have seen I don't think I'd ever donate to a charity. The CEO's pay is almost the least concern, everything runs according to the whims of people who wouldn't last 5 minutes in a for-profit business. The people donating just want to feel good about themselves or get some positive press for donating. Those are the real customers, that's the real product, and that's what the charity focuses on delivering first and foremost. They have a couple of "showcase" projects/centers/cases they use for the cameras over and over again and the rest of the work is done as cheaply as possible to get their numbers up. The disconnect between the folks on the ground and what's happening in at the home office is greater than anywhere else I've ever seen.
In terms of finances, the real money is in fundraising. From the perspective of the charity, spending $999 on fundraising to raise $1000 dollars in donations is a net positive and huge amounts of money are "wasted" on fundraising efforts. If you want a lucrative career in the industry, being a freelance fundraising consultant is definitely the way to go. You can ask for nearly as much as you can raise and you get none of the scrutiny the CEOs get.
In terms of finances, the real money is in fundraising. From the perspective of the charity, spending $999 on fundraising to raise $1000 dollars in donations is a net positive and huge amounts of money are "wasted" on fundraising efforts. If you want a lucrative career in the industry, being a freelance fundraising consultant is definitely the way to go. You can ask for nearly as much as you can raise and you get none of the scrutiny the CEOs get.
I still donate to several causes, and take a slightly different view on the expenses associated with fundraising. No one objects when for-profit businesses spend right up to the microeconomic theoretical optimal point where the marginal profit is zero. Yet we seem to object when charities do it.
If I ran a charity and had an exclusive choice to either spend $X to raise $Y or spend ($X + $0.99M) to raise ($Y + $1.00M), why wouldn't I choose the latter, assuming the charity has a use for the additional net $10K?
Having friends working in charities, it was eye-opening to see the divide between "development" and "programming" in charities. Development (fundraising) rarely struggled for money, so long as they could show a positive RoI. Programming (the actual, intended work of the charity) got whatever was left over, but that seems like the natural and intended way to run a charity.
If I ran a charity and had an exclusive choice to either spend $X to raise $Y or spend ($X + $0.99M) to raise ($Y + $1.00M), why wouldn't I choose the latter, assuming the charity has a use for the additional net $10K?
Having friends working in charities, it was eye-opening to see the divide between "development" and "programming" in charities. Development (fundraising) rarely struggled for money, so long as they could show a positive RoI. Programming (the actual, intended work of the charity) got whatever was left over, but that seems like the natural and intended way to run a charity.
>If I ran a charity and had an exclusive choice to either spend $X to raise $Y...
The common criticism of this hangs on how elastic the supply of donor dollars are. If you spend $1M to divert funds from another charity to yours, then the system overall is worse off.
This isn't a perfect model because donor dollars are not fixed, and all charities are not equivalent. reality lies somewhere in-between.
That said, it is all pretty irrelevant because there are lots of groups that evaluate charities on their overhead to benefit, so it is pretty easy to find one with low overhead if that is a concern.
The common criticism of this hangs on how elastic the supply of donor dollars are. If you spend $1M to divert funds from another charity to yours, then the system overall is worse off.
This isn't a perfect model because donor dollars are not fixed, and all charities are not equivalent. reality lies somewhere in-between.
That said, it is all pretty irrelevant because there are lots of groups that evaluate charities on their overhead to benefit, so it is pretty easy to find one with low overhead if that is a concern.
So part of the problem is the evaluation based upon low overhead …. What’s low overhead?
Everyone wants to donate to program work, but never to operations.
Even grants that carve out for operations aren’t always realistic.
Major gifts is one of the best ways to get unrestricted donor funds.
You can get a lot of information from the 990 filing of an organization.
In other comments, I agree that in many non profit organizations there are people who might not last in for profit.
Most of those people however are working in roles that are $30,000 , maybe $40,000 a year and there wouldn’t be someone in for profit who would take that role, for that amount of pay.
Overwork and burnout in the field is very real.
Unrelated to that staffing, I would again go back to operational expenses - rent, electricity, payroll etc. Depending on the nonprofit, this may be a huge percentage… but if you have an organization that has a $250,000 a year revenue, two staff to accomplish what their mission is…. What actually goes to program work might be very little.
Everyone wants to donate to program work, but never to operations.
Even grants that carve out for operations aren’t always realistic.
Major gifts is one of the best ways to get unrestricted donor funds.
You can get a lot of information from the 990 filing of an organization.
In other comments, I agree that in many non profit organizations there are people who might not last in for profit.
Most of those people however are working in roles that are $30,000 , maybe $40,000 a year and there wouldn’t be someone in for profit who would take that role, for that amount of pay.
Overwork and burnout in the field is very real.
Unrelated to that staffing, I would again go back to operational expenses - rent, electricity, payroll etc. Depending on the nonprofit, this may be a huge percentage… but if you have an organization that has a $250,000 a year revenue, two staff to accomplish what their mission is…. What actually goes to program work might be very little.
It sounds like we agree. I dont have a fixed definition for low overhead.
I just know that im not interested if I see a non-profit with 50% marketing expenses, 30% in other operational expenses, and passes through 20% to the beneficiaries (e.g. medical supplies, research grants, or whatever the stated purpose is).
I would call that high overhead.
This sounds extreme, but some large non-profits actually have numbers like this.
I just know that im not interested if I see a non-profit with 50% marketing expenses, 30% in other operational expenses, and passes through 20% to the beneficiaries (e.g. medical supplies, research grants, or whatever the stated purpose is).
I would call that high overhead.
This sounds extreme, but some large non-profits actually have numbers like this.
From the charity's perspective, yeah. From my perspective, knowing that of that $100 coming out of my pocket, only a fraction is going to what I am donating towards, and pretty inefficiently at that, and at the expense of some government programs if I write it off, that's not so interesting to me.
For what it's worth I also tend to avoid products that seem to spend a lot on advertising.
For what it's worth I also tend to avoid products that seem to spend a lot on advertising.
It's likely less expensive on the government angle that you might think. Take a thought experiment where from your $100 donation, $90 goes to wages of highly-paid fund-raising or executive staff and only $10 goes to charitable "actual work". Suppose that your combined marginal tax rate is 40%.
If you instead kept that $100 to spend on yourself, you would give the government $40 and you could spend $60.
In the case you give it to charity, the development/executive staff pays income taxes on that $90, so if their marginal rate is the same as yours (assuming they're highly paid), they pay $36 in taxes, have $54 to spend, and $10 goes to programming. If it goes to staff paid under $147K, they pay their (lower) marginal rate on it, but the full 15.3% amount for Social Security and Medicare is paid on those funds.
It seems like the government is only out ~$4 ($40 less from you; $36 more from someone else), with ~$10 available for programs.
(The largest loss is that you lost $60 of spending power in exchange for only $10 in programming while development staff got an extra $54 of spending power. You lose way more than the government loses.)
If you instead kept that $100 to spend on yourself, you would give the government $40 and you could spend $60.
In the case you give it to charity, the development/executive staff pays income taxes on that $90, so if their marginal rate is the same as yours (assuming they're highly paid), they pay $36 in taxes, have $54 to spend, and $10 goes to programming. If it goes to staff paid under $147K, they pay their (lower) marginal rate on it, but the full 15.3% amount for Social Security and Medicare is paid on those funds.
It seems like the government is only out ~$4 ($40 less from you; $36 more from someone else), with ~$10 available for programs.
(The largest loss is that you lost $60 of spending power in exchange for only $10 in programming while development staff got an extra $54 of spending power. You lose way more than the government loses.)
Meh, at the end of the day it is wasted effort. In my experience fund-raising staff were the most talented/educated people I worked with, they could be doing something better with their time and I could be doing something better with my money. You're right that the government is the biggest loser here, and by extension anyone who pays taxes or uses government services. The ability to write-off donations against taxes is a major distortion. There's a lot of fuzzy dealing, politics, and influence peddling going on with charities that I think we'd be better off as a society without.
The type of organisation you are talking about, typically styled as NGOs (non-governmental organisations) are anything but.
They are in fact huge - often international - delivery vehicles for government funds, with a dispensation to raise money from the public too - hence charitable status. So it’s just as much an issue why a de facto civil servant makes a million bucks a year as does the head of a charity.
And here’s the weird philanthropic angle: as an NGO head you only get access to the government cash spigot if you can show “co-finance”, typically private, which will 3x a philanthropist’s funding and give them huge power in resource allocation.
And here’s the weird philanthropic angle: as an NGO head you only get access to the government cash spigot if you can show “co-finance”, typically private, which will 3x a philanthropist’s funding and give them huge power in resource allocation.
Something. like partners in health makes a pretty clear impact, with the Paul Farmer aims to treat people directly, and not as statistics.
Now that he's died, it might not be the same though
Now that he's died, it might not be the same though
I guess what I really care about is "how much good does my donated dollar do?". Compare a dollar donated to expensive cancer research in the west with a dollar spent on cheap treatments which we already know to work in a developing country. How much of my dollar goes to CEO and staff pay is part of the calculation, but not the only part.
The Effective Altruism movement aims to direct money towards these activities with maximum impact. But to do this they actually need charities to collect data to measure their impact, which I guess may require some degree of professionalism.
https://www.effectivealtruism.org/
The Effective Altruism movement aims to direct money towards these activities with maximum impact. But to do this they actually need charities to collect data to measure their impact, which I guess may require some degree of professionalism.
https://www.effectivealtruism.org/
My issue with EA is similar to the posts point - it seems to be a lot of money being moved around between EA organizations finding their own blue sky philosophy research. For example the Future of Humanities Institute is funded by Giving What We Can, which passes funds to some AI orgs in SF, that the guys at FHI collaborate with, etc… I agree with their points but the actual funding of EA infrastructure appears to be a huge circle jerk.
I've found that the funds are generally quite clear where the money goes. Givewell have a separate fund for EA infrastructure.
Yes, they are, but the issue is it’s so intertwined between the people in EA funds and their supported charities its hard to not be skeptical.
The first thing that website shows is a TED talk, how ironic.
Use some comparison service to get some insight into how the money is distributed and pick one with the most impact:
https://www.charitynavigator.org/
https://www.givewell.org/
https://www.charitywatch.org/
https://www.charitynavigator.org/
https://www.givewell.org/
https://www.charitywatch.org/
Please be careful using these services. They show you high level data & many times do more harm than good due to misinterpretations.
Working with many non-profits, they're very careful to keep expenses below a certain percentage of their donations. Otherwise sites likes these cause them to lose donations.
Unfortunately this results in low salaries for employees which means the employees gain skills but can't afford to keep working there. The non-profit loses talent they helped build.
I know of some non-profits who have gotten around this by creating a 2nd non-profit where they receive donations just for business & administrative costs. Than use their 1st non-profit to say 100% of donations goes to our causes.
In reality, you should get to know your non-profits. Volunteer & help them out. Then you'll have a better understanding of how they use their money. Sometimes those high administrative costs result in a lot of value being achieved, even if the percentages don't look great.
Personally I'm a huge fan of a lot of community non-profits like local YMCA's if anyone is looking for a good place to start. I also tend to work with other small, local non-profits.
Working with many non-profits, they're very careful to keep expenses below a certain percentage of their donations. Otherwise sites likes these cause them to lose donations.
Unfortunately this results in low salaries for employees which means the employees gain skills but can't afford to keep working there. The non-profit loses talent they helped build.
I know of some non-profits who have gotten around this by creating a 2nd non-profit where they receive donations just for business & administrative costs. Than use their 1st non-profit to say 100% of donations goes to our causes.
In reality, you should get to know your non-profits. Volunteer & help them out. Then you'll have a better understanding of how they use their money. Sometimes those high administrative costs result in a lot of value being achieved, even if the percentages don't look great.
Personally I'm a huge fan of a lot of community non-profits like local YMCA's if anyone is looking for a good place to start. I also tend to work with other small, local non-profits.
This seems like bad advice. Local non profits are largely incapable of having the impact international ones do. The local YMCA will not even come close to the impact per dollar that global health non profits have. Yes, it can be hard to get to know the international non-profits, but there are plenty of services that provide meta analysis on non profit impact. Just looking at the top of givewell you can see that lives can be saved for the order of $1000, the YMCA can't compete with that.
Every non-profit is different. I am not going to argue in favor of any over the other. I apologize if it seemed that I was arguing in favor of small local ones.
I think one ends up down a deep rabbit hole comparing different non-profits. In the end I think you need to find a mission you care about & a group that you believe does it well. I think the most important thing is that you are invested in the non-profit.
A local YMCA can provide very cheap after school child care & activities that keep kids safe, out of trouble, maybe a small meal & allows their parents to work. This can end up having very huge benefits directly & indirectly in the community.
GiveWell shows a lot of cost effective ways to distribute things like medicine & safety items. Plenty of awesome non-profits there.
I work with some small non-profits that pick & fund specific research at universities on childhood cancer.
I'm not sure how you compare different non-profits like that. Especially if you want to see the impact they have over N years, how that impact is spread or if some other larger issue needs to be addressed that's making a non-profits work pointless. GiveWell itself says it doesn't try to be a charity evaluator. They try to find a small number of really good donation opportunities for people.
I think one ends up down a deep rabbit hole comparing different non-profits. In the end I think you need to find a mission you care about & a group that you believe does it well. I think the most important thing is that you are invested in the non-profit.
A local YMCA can provide very cheap after school child care & activities that keep kids safe, out of trouble, maybe a small meal & allows their parents to work. This can end up having very huge benefits directly & indirectly in the community.
GiveWell shows a lot of cost effective ways to distribute things like medicine & safety items. Plenty of awesome non-profits there.
I work with some small non-profits that pick & fund specific research at universities on childhood cancer.
I'm not sure how you compare different non-profits like that. Especially if you want to see the impact they have over N years, how that impact is spread or if some other larger issue needs to be addressed that's making a non-profits work pointless. GiveWell itself says it doesn't try to be a charity evaluator. They try to find a small number of really good donation opportunities for people.
Look at organisations like Against Malaria Fund. 100% of your donations go to buying and distributing bed nets and they collect a lot of data to prove that they end up hung above the beds of the right people.
There are an awful lot of rubbish charities but there are at least a few worthwhile ones so it’s not an excuse for not donating.
There are an awful lot of rubbish charities but there are at least a few worthwhile ones so it’s not an excuse for not donating.
How did you learn about this organization? I agree there are a lot of people out there doing good work, but how do I know which ones they are?
What should a non-profit CEO be paid? If it's someone who attracts top talent in the industry or has the connections to large donors, but they have equal/more passion for getting paid than the mission, what's the right choice?
Surely you can see that "get the best person you can for $40k" has limitations as a hiring strategy.
Surely you can see that "get the best person you can for $40k" has limitations as a hiring strategy.
Having worked at non-profits, the distribution of wages can be unlike anything ever seen at for-profit corporations and has made me become quite cynical. At a couple of the organizations I was involved with, there was lots of unpaid volunteering, grossly under-market salaries, and unpaid overtime at the bottom of the hierarchy with anemic pay all the way up the pyramid until you reached the CEO position. The CEOs rarely did much of anything except help keep alive the notion that everyones sacrifice was worth it. In one instance, the CEO went on sabbatical for over a year, appointing a few senior management to share their leadership role and the whole operation actually seemed to function better while they were gone.
I don't have anything against a non-profit CEO paying themselves well if they also pay their employees well. Many do not, with some unspoken culture of employees needing to accept meager compensation so that resources can be directed toward the core mission whose objectives are fluid and progress often difficult to measure.
I don't have anything against a non-profit CEO paying themselves well if they also pay their employees well. Many do not, with some unspoken culture of employees needing to accept meager compensation so that resources can be directed toward the core mission whose objectives are fluid and progress often difficult to measure.
You should rethink this stance. Do you want competent people running the organization or the cheapest possible?
A charity that just passes money straight through by sending envelopes full of cash to a war torn country is much worse than one that spends a ton of money on analyzing first what the most effective way to help is.
A charity that just passes money straight through by sending envelopes full of cash to a war torn country is much worse than one that spends a ton of money on analyzing first what the most effective way to help is.
This argument is always raised but in the end, the most work is done by volunteers and the top of those big corporations (the charity status is just a tax dodge) reap wealth like in any other corporation.
The lower down payed employees get the "you don't get much but you work for a charity" speech and get abused as much as the volunteers.
Let the CEO do it out of charity and take a 1$ salary and see if it all goes to hell. I very much doubt it.
The lower down payed employees get the "you don't get much but you work for a charity" speech and get abused as much as the volunteers.
Let the CEO do it out of charity and take a 1$ salary and see if it all goes to hell. I very much doubt it.
> and the top of those big corporations (the charity status is just a tax dodge) reap wealth like in any other corporation.
No it’s not, the charity status is a massive burden and it’s about the stupidest thing you can do if you’re forming a corporation with the intent to make money.
> the most work is done by volunteers
No, that’s not true. Much of the work is done by the suppliers charities buy supplies from and employees of the charity. Doctors get paid in Doctors Without Borders.
> Let the CEO do it out of charity and take a 1$ salary and see if it all goes to hell. I very much doubt it.
This is just the standard ignorant “I don’t think CEOs do anything” view dressed up in a comment about charities.
No it’s not, the charity status is a massive burden and it’s about the stupidest thing you can do if you’re forming a corporation with the intent to make money.
> the most work is done by volunteers
No, that’s not true. Much of the work is done by the suppliers charities buy supplies from and employees of the charity. Doctors get paid in Doctors Without Borders.
> Let the CEO do it out of charity and take a 1$ salary and see if it all goes to hell. I very much doubt it.
This is just the standard ignorant “I don’t think CEOs do anything” view dressed up in a comment about charities.
By that logic open source software should be mostly crap...
High pay bringing high competence and passion seems a rather poor assumption.
High pay bringing high competence and passion seems a rather poor assumption.
> By that logic open source software should be mostly crap...
And it is. Most free software projects never go anywhere. Those that do commonly have UI/UX that is far inferior to most consumer software produced for people willing to pay for it. The extreme right tail of open source software is great and most people who work on it are paid to do so. If you want reliability and quality paying for it works a lot better than hoping for people to do so uncompensated.
And it is. Most free software projects never go anywhere. Those that do commonly have UI/UX that is far inferior to most consumer software produced for people willing to pay for it. The extreme right tail of open source software is great and most people who work on it are paid to do so. If you want reliability and quality paying for it works a lot better than hoping for people to do so uncompensated.
Being a CEO of a large charity is about connections and logistics. Not passion.
https://www.givedirectly.org/ is I think a fairly effective charity, admittedly I assume they mostly send money to people in non-war torn countries, but I think the point still holds, and just doing the moral equivalent of sending evelopes full of cash is a decent baseline for charities.
Loads of people take below market salaries. Plenty of CEOs are merely paid low six digits instead of 300k+!
Is it unreasonable for a charity CEO to merely be paid a bit closer to the median for their kind of work?
Is it unreasonable for a charity CEO to merely be paid a bit closer to the median for their kind of work?
Is it unreasonable for charity CEOs to be charitable when negotiating salaries and living on the local medium salary (great incentive to raise the local economy)?
Your stance that the most competent people are paid the most is the kind of toxic capitalism that got us into this situation. Nobody is helped by this except the egos of the donators and the pockets of whoever is in charge.
That's not the stance though. The stance is that administrative costs isn't what matters. Impact is what matters. Sometimes impact requires more administration, sometimes it doesn't. But impact is something that we can measure, so why use a bad heuristic instead?
Since the choice is often restricted for these options, I usually choose Doctors Without Borders since at least they're actually out there doing stuff on the ground.
Otherwise the FSFE when it's an option in Europe since their Public Money, Public Code campaign is great.
Otherwise the FSFE when it's an option in Europe since their Public Money, Public Code campaign is great.
[deleted]
one local church in seattle is making a clear impact for the homeless. you can tell by where all the tents are set up
It's not even the CEOs. Most non-profits are just staffed by busy-bodied millennials working up a bunch of corporate memphis themed junk content. It actually is incredible how many people work jobs at a non-profit that think they are the stars of "The Bold Type" (I know that show is about a magazine). Doing nothing important all day except talking to their friends and posting it on social media - expecting that THAT was work. Also it's late and I'm salty.
> Doing nothing important all day except talking to their friends and posting it on social media - expecting that THAT was work. Also it's late and I'm salty.
Have you ever seen a corporate marketing department?
Have you ever seen a corporate marketing department?
> In the contemporary world, philanthropy is distinctively American. We give about four hundred and seventy billion dollars a year—more if you count donations of time, physical labor, and material. America’s total is ahead of any other country’s, even as a percentage of G.D.P.
Well, this is just not true.
Americans give 2.1% of GDP to charity [1] while the whole world gives just under 3% [2]. Also when you take a look at a comparison between countries [3] you can see that the US is far behind (percentage-wise, not rank-wise) countries like Netherlands (14%) or Switzerland (13.3%)
1. https://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=content.view&...
2. https://www.privatebank.citibank.com/newcpb-media/media/docu...
3. https://www.axios.com/2019/11/30/most-charitable-countries-w...
Well, this is just not true.
Americans give 2.1% of GDP to charity [1] while the whole world gives just under 3% [2]. Also when you take a look at a comparison between countries [3] you can see that the US is far behind (percentage-wise, not rank-wise) countries like Netherlands (14%) or Switzerland (13.3%)
1. https://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=content.view&...
2. https://www.privatebank.citibank.com/newcpb-media/media/docu...
3. https://www.axios.com/2019/11/30/most-charitable-countries-w...
Your global figure includes both donations and value of time donated ([2], pg.8)
Your US figure ([1]) doesn't say anything about value of time donated so I'd assume it is not included.
Finally, the metric where Netherlands and Switzerland come out on top in [3] is in size of philanthropic assets vs GDP. This is noteworthy for sure but is a an entirely different thing than amount of yearly donations.
Your US figure ([1]) doesn't say anything about value of time donated so I'd assume it is not included.
Finally, the metric where Netherlands and Switzerland come out on top in [3] is in size of philanthropic assets vs GDP. This is noteworthy for sure but is a an entirely different thing than amount of yearly donations.
You're totally right about donations + value of time. Thank you for pointing that out. It's hard to tell if these numbers can be compared. Also [4] paints a very different picture (although it's for 2016).
I think that philanthropic assets should correlate to donations, but you're right also here the numbers from this source cannot be compared to the numbers I mentioned before.
[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_charitabl...
I think that philanthropic assets should correlate to donations, but you're right also here the numbers from this source cannot be compared to the numbers I mentioned before.
[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_charitabl...
What would be more interesting would be comparing it after including welfare/public education/healthcare/poverty rates etc.
Best case scenario would be where no charity is needed, am I wrong?
Best case scenario would be where no charity is needed, am I wrong?
Honestly I believe that the other way around would be way better. There is a lot of inefficiencies in the way governments work, plus they operate like monopolies.
On the other hand there is competition between nonprofits, plus they are often multinational.
I find it interesting that some of the most efficient government organizations (like World Food Programme) actually operate as charities (in the sense that everyone can donate to them).
On the other hand there is competition between nonprofits, plus they are often multinational.
I find it interesting that some of the most efficient government organizations (like World Food Programme) actually operate as charities (in the sense that everyone can donate to them).
I think you are very much wrong when talking about efficiencies. There are no examples in the history of the world of charity sufficiently providing for the needs of the poor at a national scale. There are lots of examples of government programs providing the basic needs of the poor at scale.
> There are lots of examples of government programs providing the basic needs of the poor at scale.
I'm not sure what you're comparing here. Are you saying governments are more efficient because they are bigger? Are you saying they are more efficient because they've filled a need more completely?
The first is non-sense and the second is more a function of size and power than efficiency. Efficiency is about benefit per dollar, and governments are really really bad a that, typically making up for how bad they are by simply throwing more dollars at the problem.
I'm not sure what you're comparing here. Are you saying governments are more efficient because they are bigger? Are you saying they are more efficient because they've filled a need more completely?
The first is non-sense and the second is more a function of size and power than efficiency. Efficiency is about benefit per dollar, and governments are really really bad a that, typically making up for how bad they are by simply throwing more dollars at the problem.
People love to say governments are inefficient, but I always find that an interesting claim. It invariably relies on comparing government to much smaller scale organizations (such as charity), which obviously isn't comparable.
That is, I can be 100% efficient with my donation to charity by just...giving $20 to a homeless person. Oh look, 100% of my donation went to someone in need. A charity can be 90% efficient by collecting and distributing donations citywide; it's more widespread, and donations are less centralized, but there's cost in paying people to actually do the legwork. A government is doing stuff nationwide, distributing unequally based on need (measured in a flawed way, yes, but still requiring measurement, since it's politically untenable to do simple things), and is less efficient still. But that's...to be expected.
You see the same thing in private sector; the larger a company is, the less efficiently it runs. Walmart is the largest private employer; no one is claiming it's a well oiled machine of efficiencies comparable to a lean startup. Necessarily; it's just like with technology, the more distributed the system is, the less efficient it is. Saying that governments are inefficient and just throw money at the problem is like saying distributed systems are inefficient and just throw compute at the problem. While true, it nevertheless is still the only way to solve many problems at that scale, and comparing the 'inefficiencies' of hardware of, say, Google, to the hardware for local search on my home PC, isn't particularly meaningful rhetoric.
That is, I can be 100% efficient with my donation to charity by just...giving $20 to a homeless person. Oh look, 100% of my donation went to someone in need. A charity can be 90% efficient by collecting and distributing donations citywide; it's more widespread, and donations are less centralized, but there's cost in paying people to actually do the legwork. A government is doing stuff nationwide, distributing unequally based on need (measured in a flawed way, yes, but still requiring measurement, since it's politically untenable to do simple things), and is less efficient still. But that's...to be expected.
You see the same thing in private sector; the larger a company is, the less efficiently it runs. Walmart is the largest private employer; no one is claiming it's a well oiled machine of efficiencies comparable to a lean startup. Necessarily; it's just like with technology, the more distributed the system is, the less efficient it is. Saying that governments are inefficient and just throw money at the problem is like saying distributed systems are inefficient and just throw compute at the problem. While true, it nevertheless is still the only way to solve many problems at that scale, and comparing the 'inefficiencies' of hardware of, say, Google, to the hardware for local search on my home PC, isn't particularly meaningful rhetoric.
Walmart still have a lot of (combined) efficiencies otherwise, people would jusy shop at the local grocer if that was cheaper :)
Unlike the government, no one's forcing people to shop at walmart, and if they were loosing efficiency (charging higher due to Admin costs) people are more than welcome to move to any alternative that suits them best
Unlike the government, no one's forcing people to shop at walmart, and if they were loosing efficiency (charging higher due to Admin costs) people are more than welcome to move to any alternative that suits them best
You entirely missed the point made and are addressing a different point. By the way, who is more efficient at providing healthcare to the elderly: Medicare or the private sector or charities? Private health insurers fought hard to not have to spend as little of their budgets on salary and administrative costs as Medicare.
Your argument is rather confusing. You say they aren't comparable, then point out a plethora of comparisons. You then finish by demonstrating some of the reasons governments are inefficient.
All of this after leading with seeming disagreement. I'm a little lost.
All of this after leading with seeming disagreement. I'm a little lost.
Clearly the argument is that inefficiency grows with size. Small charity (even a so called large one) is nowhere near comparable in size to a nationwide government program. Therefore comparing efficiency between these organizations is not apt. Clearly.
I can compare apples and oranges. "Well, oranges tend to be rounder, and more orange, and tarter, and...". Doesn't change the fact that it is THE cliche for bad comparisons that you shouldn't attempt.
Maybe I should clarify, especially if English isn't your first language, saying something "isn't comparable" doesn't mean you literally can't compare them, but that doing so is unhelpful and misleading.
Maybe I should clarify, especially if English isn't your first language, saying something "isn't comparable" doesn't mean you literally can't compare them, but that doing so is unhelpful and misleading.
The Apples and Oranges idiom refers to comparing things on axis that don't make sense.
Comparing government's and private charities' efficiency at delivering help is a perfectly rational comparison to make when deciding which things should or should not be delivered by the government. The government's efficiency is always a concern when talking about it taking on new responsibilities.
If government efficiency was moot, why not have them handle delivery/allocation of all basic goods? We know that's a bad idea because the experiment has been run, and private industry is better as producing and distributing food because.... efficiency.
Comparing government's and private charities' efficiency at delivering help is a perfectly rational comparison to make when deciding which things should or should not be delivered by the government. The government's efficiency is always a concern when talking about it taking on new responsibilities.
If government efficiency was moot, why not have them handle delivery/allocation of all basic goods? We know that's a bad idea because the experiment has been run, and private industry is better as producing and distributing food because.... efficiency.
>> The Apples and Oranges idiom refers to comparing things on axis that don't make sense.
Feels like an arbitrary distinction to what I said. "Efficiency" is an axis that doesn't make sense when the scale and scope are massively different, for all the reasons mentioned above.
>> We know that's a bad idea because the experiment has been run
So many issues with this. First, your claim is "Efficiency is about benefit per dollar, and governments are really really bad a(t) that"; you make a claim about all governments. Cherry picking data points is not helping that claim; you have to show that government is never, and can never, be more efficient than private industry. I'm pointing out why even trying to make the comparison at national scale is difficult. Second, where has this example occurred? Again, I think your choice of data points is telling.
Food is actually a super interesting example where, again, the scale of the operation doesn't really make for direct comparison. Grocery stores are obviously the way consumers get access to food, but their stock happens via multiple wholesale distributors, who themselves are middle men between multiple suppliers. That is, while Ralphs/Kroger/King Soupers/etc may be as near a nationwide grocery store in the US as I'm aware of, they're stocked by Sysco, US Foods, etc (who are carrying multiple, sometimes even competing, brands), as well as sometimes specific distributors for a large enough company (Coke may have their own, for instance), and who transport product between warehouses using separate longhaul trucking companies, etc etc. There is a LOT of inefficiency involved in that, a lot of middle men collecting along the way, and as we saw during the pandemic, a lot of places the supply chain can break down. And you're comparing it to...what? Russia during peak communism? The closest the US has had is when the government got involved during WWII with rationing, and that actually worked really well, given the shortages we had.
Let's try going the other way, and scaling government down. I too will cherry pick some data - municipal broadband. Oh, wow, now we have something way more efficient than 'the free market', even without tax subsidies, in every market it exists in; so much so that the only way private industry can compete is via legislation to prevent municipal broadband from expanding.
Feels like an arbitrary distinction to what I said. "Efficiency" is an axis that doesn't make sense when the scale and scope are massively different, for all the reasons mentioned above.
>> We know that's a bad idea because the experiment has been run
So many issues with this. First, your claim is "Efficiency is about benefit per dollar, and governments are really really bad a(t) that"; you make a claim about all governments. Cherry picking data points is not helping that claim; you have to show that government is never, and can never, be more efficient than private industry. I'm pointing out why even trying to make the comparison at national scale is difficult. Second, where has this example occurred? Again, I think your choice of data points is telling.
Food is actually a super interesting example where, again, the scale of the operation doesn't really make for direct comparison. Grocery stores are obviously the way consumers get access to food, but their stock happens via multiple wholesale distributors, who themselves are middle men between multiple suppliers. That is, while Ralphs/Kroger/King Soupers/etc may be as near a nationwide grocery store in the US as I'm aware of, they're stocked by Sysco, US Foods, etc (who are carrying multiple, sometimes even competing, brands), as well as sometimes specific distributors for a large enough company (Coke may have their own, for instance), and who transport product between warehouses using separate longhaul trucking companies, etc etc. There is a LOT of inefficiency involved in that, a lot of middle men collecting along the way, and as we saw during the pandemic, a lot of places the supply chain can break down. And you're comparing it to...what? Russia during peak communism? The closest the US has had is when the government got involved during WWII with rationing, and that actually worked really well, given the shortages we had.
Let's try going the other way, and scaling government down. I too will cherry pick some data - municipal broadband. Oh, wow, now we have something way more efficient than 'the free market', even without tax subsidies, in every market it exists in; so much so that the only way private industry can compete is via legislation to prevent municipal broadband from expanding.
Efficiency at solving the problem at scale. What good does it do to have the most efficient system in terms benefit per dollar spent if it helps only a few people? Government is the most efficient at providing help at scale. For example helping Ukraine defeat Putin requires government and not charity. Want clean water across the country? Need government intervention. Want to provide universal healthcare? Need government intervention. Want everyone to read and write? Need government intervention. Charity is not sufficient to provide the needs of the populace. For one thing, relying on charities quickly runs into the free rider problem.
> The first is non-sense and the second is more a function of size and power than efficiency. Efficiency is about benefit per dollar, and governments are really really bad a that, typically making up for how bad they are by simply throwing more dollars at the problem.
This is definitely not an ideological and dogmatic statement obscuring centuries of experience across hundreds of government systems, oh no-no-no. Government is bad at everything, get it?
This is definitely not an ideological and dogmatic statement obscuring centuries of experience across hundreds of government systems, oh no-no-no. Government is bad at everything, get it?
I'm definitely in the pro-government-involvement camp but
> There are no examples in the history of the world of charity sufficiently providing for the needs of the poor at a national scale.
This is just false. Literally right now we have the case where food banks are filling in the gaps of the UK government at a national scale.
> There are no examples in the history of the world of charity sufficiently providing for the needs of the poor at a national scale.
This is just false. Literally right now we have the case where food banks are filling in the gaps of the UK government at a national scale.
Remove UK government support for food for the poor. This includes school lunches and whatnot. Will the charities be able to fill the need? The answer is no. Charities can fill gaps but not beyond that.
This is true in the same way that US rail wouldn't be able to fill commuter demand if every ICE car disappeared. It should surprise no one that an organization accustomed to, and thus built for, one thing would fail to instantaneoulsy shift to doing a somewhat similar thing on a completely different scale.
I disagree. My claim is not that charity wouldn’t be able to fill the demand right now in the scenario I presented. My claim is that it would never be able to fill the demand. Indeed, charity has never fulfilled the basic needs of the poor in any country ever.
> There is a lot of inefficiencies in the way governments work,
There are plenty of inefficiencies in businesses too. I don't understand how anyone who has ever worked for a small or medium-sized company can complain about government waste. Almost every job I've had has been just riddled with ludicrous inefficiencies.
> plus they operate like monopolies.
Every philanthropist has a monopoly on the use of their funds.
At least with tax-supported government programs, voters have representation on how those funds are used.
There are plenty of inefficiencies in businesses too. I don't understand how anyone who has ever worked for a small or medium-sized company can complain about government waste. Almost every job I've had has been just riddled with ludicrous inefficiencies.
> plus they operate like monopolies.
Every philanthropist has a monopoly on the use of their funds.
At least with tax-supported government programs, voters have representation on how those funds are used.
>Every philanthropist has a monopoly on the use of their funds.
And there are lots of them, not operating all under one central control, so they are likely to help local needs, compete in other spaces, and spread the effects.
> At least with tax-supported government programs, voters have representation on how those funds are used.
And then those funds are mostly sent to a big few items taxpayers hear about and not so much to any other needs.
Voters also have representation on how charity funds are spent, since voters are the people making donations. If anything, this means your funds target what you want instead of what others want you to spend on.
And there are lots of them, not operating all under one central control, so they are likely to help local needs, compete in other spaces, and spread the effects.
> At least with tax-supported government programs, voters have representation on how those funds are used.
And then those funds are mostly sent to a big few items taxpayers hear about and not so much to any other needs.
Voters also have representation on how charity funds are spent, since voters are the people making donations. If anything, this means your funds target what you want instead of what others want you to spend on.
Welfare should rightly fund "survival" and "levelling the playing field" resources, but charity can offer more than that - it can offer quality of life and a sense of community/belonging. It's nice to be around other people who are going through the same things, and people who support you.
So I think charity will always have a role, both financially and socially.
So I think charity will always have a role, both financially and socially.
Publicly funded institutions such as libraries and community centres can also offer this. There’s no reason other than political ideology why welfare cannot fund these things too. Which isn’t to say there isn’t a place for charity.
But of course there is a reason. A government-funded institution has no one with a stake in its long-term success. Its only goal is preserving itself and capturing more resources from the government. Small-scale philanthropy thus has a key role to play here.
Funding for basic educational standards and a minimal social safety net is already a huge spending commitment for even the most successful governments, and it's not clear if "welfare" can expand beyond that.
Funding for basic educational standards and a minimal social safety net is already a huge spending commitment for even the most successful governments, and it's not clear if "welfare" can expand beyond that.
> A government-funded institution has no one with a stake in its long-term success. Its only goal is preserving itself and capturing more resources from the government.
Why would you say that? By that logic a charitable institution has no one with a stake in it's long-term success. It's only goal is preserving itself and capturing more resources from donors. There's nothing about governments which makes them inherently incapable of hiring motivated staff.
In my experience, government workers, be they school teachers, nurses, librarians, or community workers are often some of most highly motivated workers I have met.
> it's not clear if "welfare" can expand beyond that.
It is clear if you believe that such funding is available from philanthropic sources. It's just a question of who we wish to give control of those resources to.
Why would you say that? By that logic a charitable institution has no one with a stake in it's long-term success. It's only goal is preserving itself and capturing more resources from donors. There's nothing about governments which makes them inherently incapable of hiring motivated staff.
In my experience, government workers, be they school teachers, nurses, librarians, or community workers are often some of most highly motivated workers I have met.
> it's not clear if "welfare" can expand beyond that.
It is clear if you believe that such funding is available from philanthropic sources. It's just a question of who we wish to give control of those resources to.
> A government-funded institution has no one with a stake in its long-term success.
Of course it has: pissed-off voters. Mismanaged government-funded institutions such as DMVs or social security systems are a regular troublemaker for politicians.
Of course it has: pissed-off voters. Mismanaged government-funded institutions such as DMVs or social security systems are a regular troublemaker for politicians.
Is this feedback process the explanation for why those previously underperforming and frequently complained about government departments have now been fixed?
> Is this feedback process the explanation for why those previously underperforming and frequently complained about government departments have now been fixed?
Perhaps the constant demonizing of public services by private interests, (who btw often rely on government contracts to function), and certain politicians bought by these interests could be a contributing factor in why not?
But let me hear about how private healthcare and broadband is killing it please.
Perhaps the constant demonizing of public services by private interests, (who btw often rely on government contracts to function), and certain politicians bought by these interests could be a contributing factor in why not?
But let me hear about how private healthcare and broadband is killing it please.
I think that's a lot of the issue: many people (including myself) are in fact happy with their private healthcare and broadband service.
(I have Comcast, so it's not like I've even got the "best", but I'd way rather deal with Comcast or Blue Cross than any government agency...)
(I have Comcast, so it's not like I've even got the "best", but I'd way rather deal with Comcast or Blue Cross than any government agency...)
Counter-anecdote: I've only had AT&T and Time Warner Cable (now "Spectrum") and I would rather deal with any government agency than either of those two. Specifically I would rate my water+sewer and electricity 5/5 stars while I would rate TWC and AT&T something close to negative infinity.
Are you imagining a monolithic federal-level agency? Most municipal broadband schemes are run like small non-profit businesses that just happen to be publicly/community owned.
Let me put it this way: Comcast is the only reason why a lot of the US doesn't have gigabit internet at cheap prices.
Let me put it this way: Comcast is the only reason why a lot of the US doesn't have gigabit internet at cheap prices.
It seems to be mostly cultural inertia. People accept that the government department is underperforming because they expect government departments to be underperforming. Which they expect because that has generally been true in their experience. Which is the case because nobody demands better.
It's a vicious circle, but not an inevitable one. There are plenty of examples of well-functioning government departments, and in some countries there is no significant difference between the performance of publicly run institutions and their private counterparts (although there is of course plenty of variance within both of those groups).
It's a vicious circle, but not an inevitable one. There are plenty of examples of well-functioning government departments, and in some countries there is no significant difference between the performance of publicly run institutions and their private counterparts (although there is of course plenty of variance within both of those groups).
Yes.
Great. I'll have to check that out the next time I go to my DMV. I look forward to seeing these improvements after such a long and consistent track record of dreadful experience.
Charity in the form of "the community is coming together to do something of common interest" sure.
Charity in the form of "one rich guy writes a check because he felt like it" is too dependent on the capricious whims and priorities of a handful of rich people.
Charity in the form of "one rich guy writes a check because he felt like it" is too dependent on the capricious whims and priorities of a handful of rich people.
Maybe a good relativistic metric would be donations per capita vs. GDP per capita.
Considering purchasing power parity GDP would be even better.
Considering purchasing power parity GDP would be even better.
I suspect this accounts for the discrepancy in their accounting
> more if you count donations of time, physical labor and material
> more if you count donations of time, physical labor and material
Substract from that how much money you made from Iraqi oil and how many houses/infrastructure you destroyed there and the result might be negative, and that's for a single country.
This whole charity idea is stupid if you're a country like the US, it's like kicking someone in the balls then giving them an aspirin for the pain and bragging about how generous you are.
This whole charity idea is stupid if you're a country like the US, it's like kicking someone in the balls then giving them an aspirin for the pain and bragging about how generous you are.
For an excellent exploration of many of the contradictions and dark sides of philanthropy, I strongly recommend the podcast Tiny Spark, by Amy Costello.
I've submitted a few episodes to HN in the past (with little pick-up). The issue of donor-induced bias and misdirection is a frequent one.
Unfortunately, both the podcast and its host, Amy Costello, seem to have gone dark as of this past December. I've written the organisation, the NonProfit Quarterly, several times, and made inquiries elsewhere, but have received no word on what's going on.
The back-catalogue remains available and excellent however.
https://nonprofitquarterly.org/tiny-spark/
https://nitter.kavin.rocks/tinyspark_org
https://toot.cat/@dredmorbius/108335472990676476
I've submitted a few episodes to HN in the past (with little pick-up). The issue of donor-induced bias and misdirection is a frequent one.
Unfortunately, both the podcast and its host, Amy Costello, seem to have gone dark as of this past December. I've written the organisation, the NonProfit Quarterly, several times, and made inquiries elsewhere, but have received no word on what's going on.
The back-catalogue remains available and excellent however.
https://nonprofitquarterly.org/tiny-spark/
https://nitter.kavin.rocks/tinyspark_org
https://toot.cat/@dredmorbius/108335472990676476
Okay, I think I have some weird blind spot here. I have really hard time understanding the reasoning behind philanthropy being a societal good that should be subsidized by taxpayers.
Let's take econ 101 and revealed preferences. It is obvious that if you give 100 bucks to a charity you get utility worth more than that 100 bucks. Otherwise you would not do that. And there is zero difference on the mechanics there if you compare to buying a movie ticket. Watching the movie gives you more utility than what the ticket costs. So, from the point of view of the donor we can think charity nothing more, nothing less than entertainment, and the question is, why one type of entertainment is tax deductible while another is not?
If we compare these transactions not only from the donor's point of view, we notice a clear distinction in power balance between those. The movie ticket transaction is relatively power neutral. Both sides have roughly equal say in the contract, both are taking part of a balanced business transaction. Charity then, is far from being power neutral, the donor has all the power in their hands. Not exactly a reason for charity being the tax-subsidized transaction here.
But charity makes good things. Like... creating a job for a movie teather cashier is somehow not a good thing? Nope, not convincing either.
As said, I have a blind spot here. I find no serious reason why charity should be subsidized. Yes, it feels good and makes good, but so do normal business transactions. If you think that charity is somehow better way to organize social security for the poor than government-tax-mandated social security, think again. (hint: prisoners' dilemma) If you think that you would like to support poor voluntarily, but not by force, you do not understand (or want to understand) that that does not result to sufficient support for the poor.
Let's take econ 101 and revealed preferences. It is obvious that if you give 100 bucks to a charity you get utility worth more than that 100 bucks. Otherwise you would not do that. And there is zero difference on the mechanics there if you compare to buying a movie ticket. Watching the movie gives you more utility than what the ticket costs. So, from the point of view of the donor we can think charity nothing more, nothing less than entertainment, and the question is, why one type of entertainment is tax deductible while another is not?
If we compare these transactions not only from the donor's point of view, we notice a clear distinction in power balance between those. The movie ticket transaction is relatively power neutral. Both sides have roughly equal say in the contract, both are taking part of a balanced business transaction. Charity then, is far from being power neutral, the donor has all the power in their hands. Not exactly a reason for charity being the tax-subsidized transaction here.
But charity makes good things. Like... creating a job for a movie teather cashier is somehow not a good thing? Nope, not convincing either.
As said, I have a blind spot here. I find no serious reason why charity should be subsidized. Yes, it feels good and makes good, but so do normal business transactions. If you think that charity is somehow better way to organize social security for the poor than government-tax-mandated social security, think again. (hint: prisoners' dilemma) If you think that you would like to support poor voluntarily, but not by force, you do not understand (or want to understand) that that does not result to sufficient support for the poor.
It probably exists for cultural reasons, but you can also view it as a form of decentralized decision making.
The government is saying to the citizens, if you see a problem so pressing it motivates you to altruism, we'll trust that it was important enough that you don't need to pay taxes on that money.
I like it conceptually since central authorities tend to have lots of blind spots. Like a lot of white collar crime issues, enforcement of what rules there are is lacking.
The government is saying to the citizens, if you see a problem so pressing it motivates you to altruism, we'll trust that it was important enough that you don't need to pay taxes on that money.
I like it conceptually since central authorities tend to have lots of blind spots. Like a lot of white collar crime issues, enforcement of what rules there are is lacking.
> lets take econ 101.. from the point of view of the donor we can think charity nothing more, nothing less than entertainment
Sounds like you failed econ 101.
If you only take the viewpoit of a sociopath, you will miss some crucial detail, like empathy, which is the reason people donate.
I donate because want to stave off ecosystem collapse, but you come across as the kind of person that would rather invest 2 billion in personal bunkers than 1 billion in ecosystem restoration, because the former is 'value' and the latter is 'entertainment'
Sounds like you failed econ 101.
If you only take the viewpoit of a sociopath, you will miss some crucial detail, like empathy, which is the reason people donate.
I donate because want to stave off ecosystem collapse, but you come across as the kind of person that would rather invest 2 billion in personal bunkers than 1 billion in ecosystem restoration, because the former is 'value' and the latter is 'entertainment'
Subsidize things with positive externalities (e.g. territorial defence) and tax things with negative ones (e.g. industrial processes that pollute the air).
In this case the donor gets his entertainment and good feelings and as a positive externality a child doesn't get malaria.
In this case the donor gets his entertainment and good feelings and as a positive externality a child doesn't get malaria.
> tax things with negative ones
Graduate degrees, pollution, loud cars/motorcycles, ugly buildings, mountain climbing, alcohol, marijuana, fashion magazines. So many possibilities.
Graduate degrees, pollution, loud cars/motorcycles, ugly buildings, mountain climbing, alcohol, marijuana, fashion magazines. So many possibilities.
I get 2, 3 and 4. A bit unsure how the logic works for the others? Mountain climbing could cause damage to the mountain I suppose...
Taught Master’s and second entry degrees like MDs and JDs are bad for different reasons. The first enable credentialism, which should be discouraged which tax does. Second entry degrees are just bad. Make people spend seven/eight years of their life in college instead of the three/five/six that’s common outside the US and wannabe colonies like Canada or South Korea.
Mountain climbing results in dead people and large hospital expenses and mountain rescue teams rescuing people.
Most alcohol is drunk by alcoholics. Most marijuana is ingested by people who spend over three hours a day stoned. Both of those are bad and should be discouraged. Alcohol probably causes more economic damage than every illegal drug combined.
Mountain climbing results in dead people and large hospital expenses and mountain rescue teams rescuing people.
Most alcohol is drunk by alcoholics. Most marijuana is ingested by people who spend over three hours a day stoned. Both of those are bad and should be discouraged. Alcohol probably causes more economic damage than every illegal drug combined.
"Bad" isn't enough, needs to be external to the participants (hence the term externality).
As you point out, there are externalities here of sorts. Government healthcare is often considered bad by libertarians as it seemingly gives the government the right to control people's lives (e.g. oblige they do exercise or not eat red meat or not have unprotected anal sex or whatever) in the name of reducing the costs on the healthcare system.
That said, if an opt-out was allowed to be used by the mountain climber or couch potato or go karter or bare backer that states the government has no obligation to help in the event of a bad outcome caused by their activities then the "externalility" disappears.
This is noteably NOT the case with the more classic examples of externalities such as pollution. Doesn't matter how many waivers the polluter signs, other people still get lung cancer.
As you point out, there are externalities here of sorts. Government healthcare is often considered bad by libertarians as it seemingly gives the government the right to control people's lives (e.g. oblige they do exercise or not eat red meat or not have unprotected anal sex or whatever) in the name of reducing the costs on the healthcare system.
That said, if an opt-out was allowed to be used by the mountain climber or couch potato or go karter or bare backer that states the government has no obligation to help in the event of a bad outcome caused by their activities then the "externalility" disappears.
This is noteably NOT the case with the more classic examples of externalities such as pollution. Doesn't matter how many waivers the polluter signs, other people still get lung cancer.
It's a tax wheeze.
When Bill Gates or some other billionaire allocates some portion of his wealth to his foundation, this is tax he doesn't need to pay and can write off. The foundation needs to appear to be doing good, but it can also develop his other financial interests.
I think it's better thought of as tax efficient part of public relations spend.
When Bill Gates or some other billionaire allocates some portion of his wealth to his foundation, this is tax he doesn't need to pay and can write off. The foundation needs to appear to be doing good, but it can also develop his other financial interests.
I think it's better thought of as tax efficient part of public relations spend.
The moral and economic arguments are pretty simple.
From the economic perspective, If someone gives $100 to charity, and a gets a $20 tax deduction, this is a net positive. Ostensibly, the point of government is to help people, and the point of charities are to help people. In reality, Half of that $20 tax would have gone to building bombs, so it is more like $10 vs $100.
From the moral perspective, charitable donations are set apart from other transactions because there is no quid-pro-quo, so more good is done. When you buy a movie ticket, a significant portion of that goes creating the product you receive (paying the movie studio, building the theatre, paying investors). With a charitable donation, the idea is that that more good is done because you are forgoing receiving any goods or services.
From the economic perspective, If someone gives $100 to charity, and a gets a $20 tax deduction, this is a net positive. Ostensibly, the point of government is to help people, and the point of charities are to help people. In reality, Half of that $20 tax would have gone to building bombs, so it is more like $10 vs $100.
From the moral perspective, charitable donations are set apart from other transactions because there is no quid-pro-quo, so more good is done. When you buy a movie ticket, a significant portion of that goes creating the product you receive (paying the movie studio, building the theatre, paying investors). With a charitable donation, the idea is that that more good is done because you are forgoing receiving any goods or services.
FYI: 50% of tax doesn’t go to bombs, or defense. Like 20% does and most of that isn’t bombs :)
I was being hyperbolic so this is a valid correction. Understanding military spending is tricky through because it often doesnt come out of the military budget, as retirement and medical support are counted elsewhere.
> if you give 100 bucks to a charity you get utility worth more than that 100 bucks
I find that a very odd statement to make. It is a statement that actually denies that people can act charitably at all. It comes across to me as a statement routed in a complete lack of empathy.
I'm not disagreeing with your overall point that actually less reliance on philanthropy and more tax funding of welfare and initiatives would be a benefit, just that I strongly disagree with how you get there, that all charity must be a utilitarian endeavour.
I find that a very odd statement to make. It is a statement that actually denies that people can act charitably at all. It comes across to me as a statement routed in a complete lack of empathy.
I'm not disagreeing with your overall point that actually less reliance on philanthropy and more tax funding of welfare and initiatives would be a benefit, just that I strongly disagree with how you get there, that all charity must be a utilitarian endeavour.
I was going to say the same thing, and yet…
Let’s say that you give someone $100 so that they can feed their family. The good feeling you get, and the sense of justice, etc is worth $100 or more to you. Therefore, you got at least $100 utility out of it.
Maybe? That’s what I’m guessing the OP meant.
Let’s say that you give someone $100 so that they can feed their family. The good feeling you get, and the sense of justice, etc is worth $100 or more to you. Therefore, you got at least $100 utility out of it.
Maybe? That’s what I’m guessing the OP meant.
You don't do it for a good feeling, you do it so they can feed their family.
It’s okay if altruism is inherently selfish and for a warm fuzzy feeling or social media points as long as the altruism takes place
This comes across as divorced from reality - this is not why most people donate
What's the difference between someone who donates because it makes them feel good (to have a positive impact on the world) and someone who does it because they want to have a positive impact on the world?
There isn't one. It's the same thing.
All choices can be traced back to a "selfish" reason. To deny that is to suggest that there is something other than our self that determines if we are a good person or not.
There isn't one. It's the same thing.
All choices can be traced back to a "selfish" reason. To deny that is to suggest that there is something other than our self that determines if we are a good person or not.
What is the difference between someone who lives a trully happy life of luxury and someone who lives in squalor and his happyness is induced through drugs?
There isn't one. Its the same thing.
To deny that is to suggesy that theelre is something other than our self that determined is we had a good life.
There isn't one. Its the same thing.
To deny that is to suggesy that theelre is something other than our self that determined is we had a good life.
This comes from a lot of reflection on ‘selfish altruism’. You might think it’s divorced from reality but I’ve had to argue for altruism existing far too many times in England to not think about it more. It’s probably the cause of donating far more often than you think, just people rarely admit it.
Charity should fill the gap left by the government services and the market. (Government food stamps, charity soup kitchens, grocery stores)
But charity became its own distorted industry.
But charity became its own distorted industry.
I think a lot of people give to philanthropy just purely for recognition that philanthropy unique provides.
I think it'd be an interesting experiment to celebrate the highest tax payers the same way we celebrate those in the Forbes 500 with magazine covers and the way non-profits celebrate their biggest donors with gala dinners.
Celebrating tax contributions and rewarding the contributor (on an opt in basis) could be hugely beneficial for certain types of wealthy individuals. Often times wealthy people enjoy being on these lists as it helps their business, PR, etc. in addition to recognition.
I think it would lead to healthier discourse as the tax contributor would be effectively be saying - of all the philanthropic causes I could support, I am purposely choosing to give up that right and instead contribute it via taxes to my country because I believe in its people to vote intelligently and the elected politicians to act in the best interests of those people.
I think it'd be an interesting experiment to celebrate the highest tax payers the same way we celebrate those in the Forbes 500 with magazine covers and the way non-profits celebrate their biggest donors with gala dinners.
Celebrating tax contributions and rewarding the contributor (on an opt in basis) could be hugely beneficial for certain types of wealthy individuals. Often times wealthy people enjoy being on these lists as it helps their business, PR, etc. in addition to recognition.
I think it would lead to healthier discourse as the tax contributor would be effectively be saying - of all the philanthropic causes I could support, I am purposely choosing to give up that right and instead contribute it via taxes to my country because I believe in its people to vote intelligently and the elected politicians to act in the best interests of those people.
I have always thought this. The fundamental way this is discussed today (taxation as a punitive measure) rather than celebrating the contribution to society titans of industry make when they pay their taxes.
I do not think that would matter as much as you think.
As an anecdote, I'd invite you to consider Silvio Berlusconi, which at various points in times was both the richest man and the top tax payer in Italy (and amongst the top in Europe), and a leading politician for 20 years.
He highlighted his tax contributions often, as an attempt to show that he was actually bringing a lot of value to the State, but still ran on a platform of "taxes are evil".
As an anecdote, I'd invite you to consider Silvio Berlusconi, which at various points in times was both the richest man and the top tax payer in Italy (and amongst the top in Europe), and a leading politician for 20 years.
He highlighted his tax contributions often, as an attempt to show that he was actually bringing a lot of value to the State, but still ran on a platform of "taxes are evil".
>>but still ran on a platform of "taxes are evil".
One can have a morally consistent world view that holds that voluntarily submitting oneself to the state's tax obligations to be a moral good, comparable to donating to the state, while relying on the state's apparatus of violence (the courts, police and prisons which compel compliance with state edicts) to tax the private income of people at large is an evil.
One can have a morally consistent world view that holds that voluntarily submitting oneself to the state's tax obligations to be a moral good, comparable to donating to the state, while relying on the state's apparatus of violence (the courts, police and prisons which compel compliance with state edicts) to tax the private income of people at large is an evil.
Yes there's definitely a negative feedback loop currently where:
- the loudest of society villify the rich regardless of whether they are fairly paying taxes or not
- a subset of rich laud each other for coming up with the most creative tax evasion schemes
Some sort of publisher should hold up the most honest, most successful tax patriots and put them up on a magazine cover.
It'd be important to have some separation of the recognition from the actual government (i.e. it should be a private publishing company) to avoid attempts to access government officials and to avoid it looking coerced.
It'd also be important to make it voluntary/opt-in as I'd imagine many would rather just be anonymous.
- the loudest of society villify the rich regardless of whether they are fairly paying taxes or not
- a subset of rich laud each other for coming up with the most creative tax evasion schemes
Some sort of publisher should hold up the most honest, most successful tax patriots and put them up on a magazine cover.
It'd be important to have some separation of the recognition from the actual government (i.e. it should be a private publishing company) to avoid attempts to access government officials and to avoid it looking coerced.
It'd also be important to make it voluntary/opt-in as I'd imagine many would rather just be anonymous.
"I am purposely choosing to give up that right and instead contribute it via taxes to my country because I believe in its people to vote intelligently and the elected politicians to act in the best interests of those people."
I might sound cynic, but personally I could only held up that belief, if I never open my eyes again and never open any newspaper anymore, or turn on the tv. Usually I read sentences like this in satire articles, but I think I understand the motivation behind it. Sometimes you have to give trust first, to make something work. I am just very sceptical in this case.
I might sound cynic, but personally I could only held up that belief, if I never open my eyes again and never open any newspaper anymore, or turn on the tv. Usually I read sentences like this in satire articles, but I think I understand the motivation behind it. Sometimes you have to give trust first, to make something work. I am just very sceptical in this case.
I think you would really enjoy the Nautilus article about Game Theory of anonymous philanthropy:
https://nautil.us/larry-david-and-the-game-theory-of-anonymo...
The opening call out is pretty great, too. Ever see the Curb Your Enthusiasm episode where Larry's big donation is upstaged by Ted's anonymous donation?
Visible philanthropy is not a simple system of rewards. It's much more interesting than that.
https://nautil.us/larry-david-and-the-game-theory-of-anonymo...
The opening call out is pretty great, too. Ever see the Curb Your Enthusiasm episode where Larry's big donation is upstaged by Ted's anonymous donation?
Visible philanthropy is not a simple system of rewards. It's much more interesting than that.
I remember that episode!
I think it'd still work - you'd just have to tweaked it a bit - could definitely have the list ordered with most patriotic "anonymous" tax contributors listed in order and then reward the first three non-anonymous highest tax contributors with the full 'bio'/backstory in the magazine spread.
I think it'd still work - you'd just have to tweaked it a bit - could definitely have the list ordered with most patriotic "anonymous" tax contributors listed in order and then reward the first three non-anonymous highest tax contributors with the full 'bio'/backstory in the magazine spread.
When I worked for what was the fastest growing public publisher in London over thirty years ago, salespeople actually shared their tax slips to boast. "Super tax" was the euphemisms for how much was calculated you needed to have deducted from your payroll every time you hit a campaign out the park and increased your tax offices estimate of your annual return. Which we did. Often. See the Guinness records book for the PGA tour guide of'93 which was the apotheosis and the end of that lark. (Almost all advertising it weighed six pounds or something crazy but quite sane compared with the first dollar points paid to direct sales)
Does anyone still care about Forbes covers? this is not 2001 anymore. Forbes along with Fortune are just shity user contributor content farms now. They got in early on the content farm bandwagon.
well, sacrificing long term viability for short term gain would seem to be very on-brand for them.
> right and instead contribute it via taxes to my country because I believe in its people to vote intelligently and the elected politicians to act in the best interests of those people.
If you want to throw money straight down the fucking drain, go for it. The federal budget is already not balanced. No matter what rich people donate extra, the money will be squandered exactly the same way it is today but you can’t even attach stipulations.
Statistically speaking, you money will just into the military.
I would much rather have the rich use their influence to push for good things the government doesn’t care about (hunger programs, drug rehab, housing, etc).
If you want to throw money straight down the fucking drain, go for it. The federal budget is already not balanced. No matter what rich people donate extra, the money will be squandered exactly the same way it is today but you can’t even attach stipulations.
Statistically speaking, you money will just into the military.
I would much rather have the rich use their influence to push for good things the government doesn’t care about (hunger programs, drug rehab, housing, etc).
Well its more of a glass is half full outlook - their making the tax payments regardless. They might as well wear the t-shirt emblazoned with "I paid my taxes and all I got was this lousy t-shirt" with pride, no?
That seems like healthier political discourse would need to precede (rather than naturally follow) such a system.
There are several causes I support; none of them are close to and just slightly more effective than giving that money to the government.
There are several causes I support; none of them are close to and just slightly more effective than giving that money to the government.
The real problem comes though when you actually do research to try to find a good charity to give to.
Tax is a side show here. The issue I found is when trying to find a good charity an overwhelming amount of the money is spent on "fund raising" and exactly what this article is talking about. I quit giving to charity besides the local food bank. Literally everything else seemed like a scam. The more the name of the charity pulls on the heart strings the better chance it is a scam too.
Tax is a side show here. The issue I found is when trying to find a good charity an overwhelming amount of the money is spent on "fund raising" and exactly what this article is talking about. I quit giving to charity besides the local food bank. Literally everything else seemed like a scam. The more the name of the charity pulls on the heart strings the better chance it is a scam too.
Me too. I researched, part of a graduate school assignment: detailed following of the money, and beyond direct gifts to local food banks or directly to people in need I honor no organized charity. The well was poisoned decades ago, and now charities are simply not charities.
A Captain of Industry who pays a lot in taxes might also indirectly use public goods like roads (for their logistics). They are not some baseline citizen with one white-picket-fence house who contributes above and beyond.
> Celebrating tax contributions and rewarding the contributor (on an opt in basis) could be hugely beneficial for certain types of wealthy individuals. Often times wealthy people enjoy being on these lists as it helps their business, PR, etc. in addition to recognition.
This is irrelevant. Rich people already rule the world. If they want better PR they can just buy it.
You can worship rich people all you want, but it would be for your own pleasure and wouldn't be relevant to the billionaires or whoever it is that we're talking about.
> Celebrating tax contributions and rewarding the contributor (on an opt in basis) could be hugely beneficial for certain types of wealthy individuals. Often times wealthy people enjoy being on these lists as it helps their business, PR, etc. in addition to recognition.
This is irrelevant. Rich people already rule the world. If they want better PR they can just buy it.
You can worship rich people all you want, but it would be for your own pleasure and wouldn't be relevant to the billionaires or whoever it is that we're talking about.
The OP was talking about the top tax payers, which is a specific subset of rich people. Maybe it is a good idea to come up with some soft incentives. Tax collection generally relies on "whip", but "sugar" isn't useless either.
Yes - some sugar/recognition/appreciation could go a long way.
Imagine Organization A (i.e. non-profit organization) offers to accept your gift for $N and throws you a gala with you as the beneficiary.
Then imagine Organization B (i.e. the government) forcefully accepts your a gift for $N that you are willing to give regardless of the subtle implied threat of force because you are appreciative of what it does for you and your community but there is no recognition and parts of Organization B are bragging about how they are taking money from you/villifying you and actively being rewarded with promotions for doing so.
I'd imagine most would be more happy with Organization A.
And if one is firmly committed to a "soak the rich" outlook, you can just think of this as a way to massage their ego for free.
Imagine Organization A (i.e. non-profit organization) offers to accept your gift for $N and throws you a gala with you as the beneficiary.
Then imagine Organization B (i.e. the government) forcefully accepts your a gift for $N that you are willing to give regardless of the subtle implied threat of force because you are appreciative of what it does for you and your community but there is no recognition and parts of Organization B are bragging about how they are taking money from you/villifying you and actively being rewarded with promotions for doing so.
I'd imagine most would be more happy with Organization A.
And if one is firmly committed to a "soak the rich" outlook, you can just think of this as a way to massage their ego for free.
I'd rather not have all the eggs in one basket every time there's some mandatory fad going around.
Amusing to see some of the viewpoints today, dollar-talk about dollars.. as a person with an arts background, I can say that philantropy is obvious -- certain activities that people want to do, cannot be done without some kind of backing.. It is a matter of enabling activity that just could not happen otherwise. Some of the participants were vaguely aware that a "CEO" was being paid somewhere, but what was important was the programs. Who cares about the CEO. It is the other money counters that cared most, not participants. Similarly with "who is running this"/socal dominance.. the other dominance people cared.. so what? On the other hand, the amount of random friction, surprising attitude moments and personal instability with cat-herding dynamics, is notable. Surviving the year is a real concern.
Most of the comments here are more aligned with the problems of "Cancer Inc" or "Red Cross" sorts of non-profits, where the mission is real but the massive insititution is decades old and owns a lot of property and equipment, and the executive branch really is in a different world, and people are hired to do boring jobs.
Lastly, it is famously true that huge, huge groups are non-profits, where a lot of money changes hands.. and those kinds of setups are closed to your questions, e.g. hospitals and big league sports. ok one more - the "royalty" of those like the Bishop Museum or the Playboy Golf Championship in the 1980s, which both devolved into giant, serious scams where people actually, eventually went to jail. have fun with your non-profits! others did...
Most of the comments here are more aligned with the problems of "Cancer Inc" or "Red Cross" sorts of non-profits, where the mission is real but the massive insititution is decades old and owns a lot of property and equipment, and the executive branch really is in a different world, and people are hired to do boring jobs.
Lastly, it is famously true that huge, huge groups are non-profits, where a lot of money changes hands.. and those kinds of setups are closed to your questions, e.g. hospitals and big league sports. ok one more - the "royalty" of those like the Bishop Museum or the Playboy Golf Championship in the 1980s, which both devolved into giant, serious scams where people actually, eventually went to jail. have fun with your non-profits! others did...
I don't necessarily want it to go away entirely, but the tax breaks should be abolished. It's particularly offensive to see the state and local tax deduction (money that actually goes to help one's fellows in the ways they see fit, without being beholden to the whims of the "donor") capped while 503c "donations" remain an unlimited deduction.
>It's particularly offensive to see the state and local tax deduction (money that actually goes to help one's fellows in the ways they see fit, without being beholden to the whims of the "donor") capped while 503c "donations" remain an unlimited deduction.
The point of charitable deductions is to incentivize certain types of behavior (ie. charitable donations). On the other hand the SALT deduction is effectively the federal government subsidizing high-tax jurisdictions at the expense of low-tax jurisdictions. The first seems far more defensible and in line with the federal government's mission[1], than some sort of mechanism to pad the finances of certain states. This doesn't necessarily exclude redistribute policies by the federal government entirely, but doing it by tax rate is baffling no matter how you look at it.
[1] and no, this argument doesn't work for the SALT deduction because state/local taxes aren't optional
The point of charitable deductions is to incentivize certain types of behavior (ie. charitable donations). On the other hand the SALT deduction is effectively the federal government subsidizing high-tax jurisdictions at the expense of low-tax jurisdictions. The first seems far more defensible and in line with the federal government's mission[1], than some sort of mechanism to pad the finances of certain states. This doesn't necessarily exclude redistribute policies by the federal government entirely, but doing it by tax rate is baffling no matter how you look at it.
[1] and no, this argument doesn't work for the SALT deduction because state/local taxes aren't optional
Not really. Flyover and southern states in particular mooch off of the productive locales.
So not only do I need to pay more taxes for the US government to fund almost double my states pro rata aid to places like West Virginia and Mississippi, but I get to pay even higher taxes because my locality actually provides things like sound education.
You know what, I think we should exercise the people’s desire for small government and relocate military bases to the places that pay for them.
So not only do I need to pay more taxes for the US government to fund almost double my states pro rata aid to places like West Virginia and Mississippi, but I get to pay even higher taxes because my locality actually provides things like sound education.
You know what, I think we should exercise the people’s desire for small government and relocate military bases to the places that pay for them.
> So not only do I need to pay more taxes for the US government to fund almost double my states pro rata aid to places like West Virginia and Mississippi, but... (snip)
Wouldn't the most effective solution be to reduce the number of things the federal government does? Rich blue states make their choices and keep more of their revenue within state boundaries and residents of red states get to decide if they like their current choices lower (or no) federal subsidy.
Practically speaking (not politically speaking), that seems like a point the left and right should be able to agree on.
Wouldn't the most effective solution be to reduce the number of things the federal government does? Rich blue states make their choices and keep more of their revenue within state boundaries and residents of red states get to decide if they like their current choices lower (or no) federal subsidy.
Practically speaking (not politically speaking), that seems like a point the left and right should be able to agree on.
I’d prefer to live in a modern society where we get to share the immense wealth of our nation in a way that promotes the general welfare.
I’ve run into so many people in my time who’ve had to suffer in various ways because of senseless circumstances. One person lost their home due to a medical condition and the associated costs. Had it happened 6 months before his employee health plan changed, his family’s life would have taken a dramatically different path.
I’ve run into so many people in my time who’ve had to suffer in various ways because of senseless circumstances. One person lost their home due to a medical condition and the associated costs. Had it happened 6 months before his employee health plan changed, his family’s life would have taken a dramatically different path.
My European experience says that even relatively small countries the size of Mississippi themselves have a fair share of folks kvetching that the richer parts subsidize the poorer parts. Few places are small or homogeneous enough not to experience that. A continent-wide country like the US can hardly escape the same.
It is even worse if there is an ethnic difference in the mix (e.g. the Flemish vs. the Walloons in Belgium).
Also, I wonder whether New York / California liberals would really welcome soldiers among them and whether the military could recruit enough people there. Amazon got kicked out from New York for being too capitalist.
It definitely seems to me that the coastal elite wants a strong military to protect their trade empire, but preferrably located far away and with someone else's kids doing the dangerous parts of the job.
It is even worse if there is an ethnic difference in the mix (e.g. the Flemish vs. the Walloons in Belgium).
Also, I wonder whether New York / California liberals would really welcome soldiers among them and whether the military could recruit enough people there. Amazon got kicked out from New York for being too capitalist.
It definitely seems to me that the coastal elite wants a strong military to protect their trade empire, but preferrably located far away and with someone else's kids doing the dangerous parts of the job.
A crucial (though obviously not the only!) purpose of the US military is to provide a jobs program with nearly European/white-collar-US level social benefits (healthcare, college, retirement, even housing) to people with few options. It stands to reason this means volunteers disproportionately come from states with weak economies.
I’m not sure about the wealth of the country , but many people still don’t have running water or plumbing.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/after-generations-of...
That’s a problem that seems to Mostly being addressed by nonprofits very slowly, and not the government …
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/after-generations-of...
That’s a problem that seems to Mostly being addressed by nonprofits very slowly, and not the government …
> Not really. Flyover and southern states in particular mooch off of the productive locales.
Addressed in my original comment (although it was edited in a few minutes after initial posting so I'll let it slide):
>This doesn't necessarily exclude redistribute policies by the federal government entirely, but doing it by tax rate is baffling no matter how you look at it.
Addressed in my original comment (although it was edited in a few minutes after initial posting so I'll let it slide):
>This doesn't necessarily exclude redistribute policies by the federal government entirely, but doing it by tax rate is baffling no matter how you look at it.
> I think we should exercise the people’s desire for small government and relocate military bases to the places that pay for them
Do you know what military bases do? They aren’t there to protect just a local region.
Do you know what military bases do? They aren’t there to protect just a local region.
But that's not the point. Aside from what military does when military does something, military installations are a huge factor in the areas where they are. When Trump threatened to remove US military bases from Germany - where I live - the main issue here in Germany was the significant economic impact on those local areas, often in less developed more remote regions.
https://www.dw.com/en/german-towns-face-economic-hit-should-... -- "German towns face economic hit should US troops go"
Much of the military is used by politicians as an economic tool for certain regions, independent of their fighting value.
So, you certainly have a mostly local economic impact of military bases.
https://www.areadevelopment.com/siteSelection/june09/militar...
https://www.tpr.org/military-veterans-issues/2020-06-22/texa...
OPs flippant comment reminds me of the equally un-serious suggestion I read somewhere, some time ago, that people should pay for their jobs so that it can be made visible how valuable they think a job is.
https://www.dw.com/en/german-towns-face-economic-hit-should-... -- "German towns face economic hit should US troops go"
Much of the military is used by politicians as an economic tool for certain regions, independent of their fighting value.
So, you certainly have a mostly local economic impact of military bases.
https://www.areadevelopment.com/siteSelection/june09/militar...
https://www.tpr.org/military-veterans-issues/2020-06-22/texa...
OPs flippant comment reminds me of the equally un-serious suggestion I read somewhere, some time ago, that people should pay for their jobs so that it can be made visible how valuable they think a job is.
Your offer is acceptable.
Tax deductions shouldn't be incentives for random policy ideas, they should keep the tax system fair by taxing people on income that really is theirs to dispose of freely. The fact that people don't have any choice about whether to pay state or local taxes is precisely why they should be able to deduct them from their federal taxes.
>Tax deductions shouldn't be incentives for random policy ideas
Taxes are one of the main ways the government tries to influence behavior (eg. sin taxes, green energy incentives). What do you suggest should take their place? Or do you think that government shouldn't be in the business of influencing behavior entirely?
Taxes are one of the main ways the government tries to influence behavior (eg. sin taxes, green energy incentives). What do you suggest should take their place? Or do you think that government shouldn't be in the business of influencing behavior entirely?
If the government wants to pay people money out of the general taxation fund to undertake certain behaviours, let it do so directly, where we can see it and account for it, rather than through deductions.
That's actually a very good point. Tax deductions in contrast to direct payments typically favor high income individuals over poorer people. At the same time for the government to get the greatest impact of your policy, which typically means influencing the behavior of the maximum amount of people. Again this would point to targeting the poor&middle class.
One of the largest* tax deductions comes from the paying of people’s wages for jobs. That’s a tax deduction where the economic benefit of the overall transaction goes much more to the wage recipient than to the entity taking the deduction.
It seems unreasonable for employers to not be able to deduct that amount and for the government to somehow pay them a fraction of what it costs to employ people.
* - I suspect it’s the largest overall, but didn’t have time to do the research to satisfy myself that it’s the single largest, but it’s clearly one of the largest.
It seems unreasonable for employers to not be able to deduct that amount and for the government to somehow pay them a fraction of what it costs to employ people.
* - I suspect it’s the largest overall, but didn’t have time to do the research to satisfy myself that it’s the single largest, but it’s clearly one of the largest.
> One of the largest* tax deductions comes from the paying of people’s wages for jobs. That’s a tax deduction where the economic benefit of the overall transaction goes much more to the wage recipient than to the entity taking the deduction.
To be fair it's not wages that are benefited specifically here, it's business expenses in general. If anything, wages are treated worse than other expenses (eg. buying a printer), because they're subject to payroll taxes. As for why expenses are deductible in the first place, that's done for a good reason as well. If you don't do that, you end up taxing x% for each step in the value chain, which would give huge tax benefits to conglomerates (which own the entire value chain) compared to small businesses.
To be fair it's not wages that are benefited specifically here, it's business expenses in general. If anything, wages are treated worse than other expenses (eg. buying a printer), because they're subject to payroll taxes. As for why expenses are deductible in the first place, that's done for a good reason as well. If you don't do that, you end up taxing x% for each step in the value chain, which would give huge tax benefits to conglomerates (which own the entire value chain) compared to small businesses.
I totally get that; I was pointing out that people often think "I arrange my finances properly and use deductions correctly/as-intended and all these other assholes are taking advantage of tax loopholes. (Things I use are proper deductions; things others use are disgusting loopholes.)"
Well, you do have a choice, you could move to a lower tax jurisdiction. Different jurisdictions provide different trade-offs in terms of the tax burdens and services rendered. You can move to a jurisdiction that provides your preferred trade-off.
Furthermore, there are lot of costs which you arguably can't avoid: food, medical, housing etc. Should you be able to deduct those off of your federal taxes as well since you can't really dispose of that income freely?
Furthermore, there are lot of costs which you arguably can't avoid: food, medical, housing etc. Should you be able to deduct those off of your federal taxes as well since you can't really dispose of that income freely?
> Well, you do have a choice, you could move to a lower tax jurisdiction. Different jurisdictions provide different trade-offs in terms of the tax burdens and services rendered. You can move to a jurisdiction that provides your preferred trade-off.
If you take that attitude then that invalidates the original argument - in that case, surely it's just as reasonable for the federal government to incentivise local mutual support cooperatives (which is what high-tax jurisdictions ultimately are) as it is to incentivise 503cs.
> Furthermore, there are lot of costs which you arguably can't avoid: food, medical, housing etc. Should you be able to deduct those off of your federal taxes as well since you can't really dispose of that income freely?
Yes, absoutely! The fact that you can't do that unless you structure yourself as a business is one of the great injustices that leads to the rich paying a much lower real tax rate than the poor.
If you take that attitude then that invalidates the original argument - in that case, surely it's just as reasonable for the federal government to incentivise local mutual support cooperatives (which is what high-tax jurisdictions ultimately are) as it is to incentivise 503cs.
> Furthermore, there are lot of costs which you arguably can't avoid: food, medical, housing etc. Should you be able to deduct those off of your federal taxes as well since you can't really dispose of that income freely?
Yes, absoutely! The fact that you can't do that unless you structure yourself as a business is one of the great injustices that leads to the rich paying a much lower real tax rate than the poor.
[deleted]
States' rights require states' rights to their money. Federal income tax should be near zero and the Senate representatives should offer treaty money.
Enough theft from my pocket. I'll fund my fellow man. But to fund a man who calls himself my enemy and removes my freedom: it takes a Big Government fanatic to require that.
Enough theft from my pocket. I'll fund my fellow man. But to fund a man who calls himself my enemy and removes my freedom: it takes a Big Government fanatic to require that.
That’s funny, I feel the exact opposite for the same reasons. I think charitable donations are far better than taxes because the donors get to direct where the money goes and have say over its use.
Those giving up their money are in the best position to ensure it is used towards the ends they want. I think direct oversight is a positive attribute and useful in ensuring the altruistic goals are effectively met.
I also oppose local tax deductions despite standing to benefit greatly.
Those giving up their money are in the best position to ensure it is used towards the ends they want. I think direct oversight is a positive attribute and useful in ensuring the altruistic goals are effectively met.
I also oppose local tax deductions despite standing to benefit greatly.
"The ends they want" - as opposed to the ends the recipients want (as expressed through an admittedly imperfect democratic system) - is exactly what I object to. Most "donations" are made to advance a personal agenda at least in part; even when the donor sincerely believes they're doing what's best for people, that's usually a reflection of their personal politics and you'll often find other people believing the exact opposite. It's fine to fund personal causes, admirable even, but you shouldn't be given a tax break for it.
This seems to assume that the government is benevolent, whereas private actors are not. I have come to view government programs with the perspective that they are intended primarily to benefit the politicians efforts to become reelected. They can claim to be saving the world, but with other people's money. Some good may come of these efforts but I don't view them as inherently virtuous. You argue that private actors let personal politics dictate how they direct their funds, if the alternative is allowing politicians to do so, I don't see how that is much better.
I am perfectly content with private actors deciding how best to use their own money for philanthropic purposes. It leads to a more diverse set of approaches. If there are people that believe in one thing and others that believe the opposite they should both be allowed to fund what they think is right without a democratic majority stifling minority points of view.
I do not have a point of view on whether it is worthy of a tax break.
I am perfectly content with private actors deciding how best to use their own money for philanthropic purposes. It leads to a more diverse set of approaches. If there are people that believe in one thing and others that believe the opposite they should both be allowed to fund what they think is right without a democratic majority stifling minority points of view.
I do not have a point of view on whether it is worthy of a tax break.
> This seems to assume that the government is benevolent, whereas private actors are not.
Not so much benevolent as accountable. The government, for all its faults, has a huge edifice of checks and balances, and while the gears grind slowly they do limit how far astray things can go. A private 503c is a real wild west in comparison.
Not so much benevolent as accountable. The government, for all its faults, has a huge edifice of checks and balances, and while the gears grind slowly they do limit how far astray things can go. A private 503c is a real wild west in comparison.
If a charity to which I contribute does a single thing I don't like, I can decide to never give them another penny.
If the government doesn't do a single thing I like, more than half my income still goes to taxes each year to fund the government (income, property, sales, etc.), and there is nothing I can realistically do to change that.
Which one is accountable?
If the government doesn't do a single thing I like, more than half my income still goes to taxes each year to fund the government (income, property, sales, etc.), and there is nothing I can realistically do to change that.
Which one is accountable?
When we're talking about something that's supposed to support a whole community, being "accountable" to the whims of one individual is not a meaningful level of accountability. Changing government policy requires broad consensus from many people, which is exactly as it should be.
This assumes that charities are "supposed" to support the whole community, which I don't think is true.
It also assumes that government policies support the whole community, which I don't think is true either. It is pretty common for policies to harm one group in the community and benefit a different group in the community.
It also assumes that government policies support the whole community, which I don't think is true either. It is pretty common for policies to harm one group in the community and benefit a different group in the community.
All the more reason they need to be accountable to the community as a whole rather than a small handful of individuals.
OK, we're using words differently here.
I think accountable means that when I give someone money, they should use my money for what I want, and you think accountable means that when I give someone money, they should use my money for what you want.
I think accountable means that when I give someone money, they should use my money for what I want, and you think accountable means that when I give someone money, they should use my money for what you want.
The whole point of "giving" is that it's no longer "my money". If it's still your money then it's not a donation.
> Not so much benevolent as accountable.
Remind me. Who was fired for Waco? Who at the CDC was fired for stopping the Seattle Flu Study from testing for COVID, or for banning commercial labs from testing for it while their own lab reported all samples as positive because of contamination?
Remind me. Who was fired for Waco? Who at the CDC was fired for stopping the Seattle Flu Study from testing for COVID, or for banning commercial labs from testing for it while their own lab reported all samples as positive because of contamination?
This would be a more convincing argument if government assistance to the poor were in the form of some kind of UBI that its recipients could actually use as they wanted, rather than the current situation where it's a hodgepodge of social engineering programs filtered through layers of patronage jobs for administration.
> it's a hodgepodge of social engineering programs filtered through layers of patronage jobs for administration
Can you back that up? I know people who were in poverty and very much support many of those programs as lifesavers. It's wealthier people, who have no experience of them, who I see disparaging them.
Also, the criticism is cliche - I haven't seen much evidence of it. While nothing is perfect, the civil service in most advanced countries, including the US, are not patronage jobs; they are protected from such hiring and firing corruption. I know civil servants and they did not get the job through patronage and take their public service and professionalism very seriously. It's very easy to smear all those people in a few words.
Can you back that up? I know people who were in poverty and very much support many of those programs as lifesavers. It's wealthier people, who have no experience of them, who I see disparaging them.
Also, the criticism is cliche - I haven't seen much evidence of it. While nothing is perfect, the civil service in most advanced countries, including the US, are not patronage jobs; they are protected from such hiring and firing corruption. I know civil servants and they did not get the job through patronage and take their public service and professionalism very seriously. It's very easy to smear all those people in a few words.
> very much support many of those programs as lifesavers
That doesn't really address the issue though, does it? Food stamps are better than nothing, but they do not in fact allow recipients to spend the assistance as they see fit.
It's fine to be in favor of social engineering programs, but it's not consistent to then complain that philanthropists' charity comes with strings attached. The government's charity does as well.
That doesn't really address the issue though, does it? Food stamps are better than nothing, but they do not in fact allow recipients to spend the assistance as they see fit.
It's fine to be in favor of social engineering programs, but it's not consistent to then complain that philanthropists' charity comes with strings attached. The government's charity does as well.
> It's fine to be in favor of social engineering programs, but it's not consistent to then complain that philanthropists' charity comes with strings attached. The government's charity does as well.
I don't know what you mean: This doesn't seem to fit the common definition of social engineering, or we could call stop lights and tax forms social engineering; so I can't say I'm in favor, against, etc. And 'strings attached' is much too vague, as everything has strings attached (e.g., legal requirements); the question is the degree and who the strings serve.
I don't know what you mean: This doesn't seem to fit the common definition of social engineering, or we could call stop lights and tax forms social engineering; so I can't say I'm in favor, against, etc. And 'strings attached' is much too vague, as everything has strings attached (e.g., legal requirements); the question is the degree and who the strings serve.
I mean in the sense that it's not cash assistance to the poor; instead, it's the government saying "these are the things you need to buy" and providing a voucher system for those particular things. You cannot decide that you want to economize on food and spend half your SNAP benefits on liquor, and so you cannot decide that you want to economize on food and spend half your SNAP benefits on a car repair to upgrade to a better job that you'd have to drive to.
> we could call ... tax forms social engineering
Tax forms are obviously social engineering. The government incentivizes (having kids, having a mortgage, saving for retirement, charitable giving) and disincentivizes all kinds of things via the tax code.
> we could call ... tax forms social engineering
Tax forms are obviously social engineering. The government incentivizes (having kids, having a mortgage, saving for retirement, charitable giving) and disincentivizes all kinds of things via the tax code.
I think that stretches the definition of social engineering to the point of meaninglessness. Everything government (or other powerful actors) does or doesn't do will influence people one way or the other. One could also say that we don't limit SNAP spending, we enable it or certain items. The money also can't go to building supplies.
> a hodgepodge of social engineering programs filtered through layers of patronage jobs for administration
That's somewhat true as a description of the average government programme, but it's far more true as a description of the average 503c.
That's somewhat true as a description of the average government programme, but it's far more true as a description of the average 503c.
>It's fine to fund personal causes, admirable even, but you shouldn't be given a tax break for it.
How does this argument work for other deductions that also allow you to "fund personal causes"? For instance, the IRS allows you to deduct interest paid on student loans. I can get student loans to study anything I want, and doing so is arguably used to to advance my "personal agenda" (eg. getting a phd in economics so I can work in a thinktank). Should I be worried that the action was a "reflection of their personal politics" and therefore not get a tax break for it?
Feel free to repeat this argument for other deductions that the IRS offers: https://www.irs.gov/credits-deductions-for-individuals
How does this argument work for other deductions that also allow you to "fund personal causes"? For instance, the IRS allows you to deduct interest paid on student loans. I can get student loans to study anything I want, and doing so is arguably used to to advance my "personal agenda" (eg. getting a phd in economics so I can work in a thinktank). Should I be worried that the action was a "reflection of their personal politics" and therefore not get a tax break for it?
Feel free to repeat this argument for other deductions that the IRS offers: https://www.irs.gov/credits-deductions-for-individuals
Yes, most deductions should be abolished. Payments to 503cs are one of the ones that take the most out of the public purse though, AIUI, since even the richest people don't pay a huge amount of student loan interest.
Would you be happy with government-designed (so presumably democratic) tests and quotas for which charities get the tax breaks?
That's a start, but for me to be "happy" I'd want there to be similar level of accountability and safeguards from bottom to top. So those charities would need to be subject to the same kind of legal rules as a government agency - FOIA, equal protection clause, that kind of thing. And there'd have to be a similar culture of holding them to account. (Like, counterintuitively I'd be happier if I started seeing a lot more news reports of charities wasting funds, because that would suggest that reporters at least cared enough to investigate)
Isn't that already the case? You can't set up a charity to throw parties for yourself, for instance.
You pretty much can, if you can afford the O(1) legal costs to get it approved and set up. An "art museum" set up next door to the "donor" and open only by appointment with the "donor"? Perfectly legitimate according to the IRS.
> An "art museum" set up next door to the "donor" and open only by appointment with the "donor"? Perfectly legitimate according to the IRS.
Source? Most fundraising events have a deductible and non-deductible portion of the ticket price because the IRS does not look fondly on such practices.
Source? Most fundraising events have a deductible and non-deductible portion of the ticket price because the IRS does not look fondly on such practices.
You know what could be good, these charities talk about stories, not their statistics. Maybe they could humanistically keep records of their stories, like use a good system for that, maybe part digital, but with paper, so they can be read.
Like the complaints at Liga Chilena Contra la Epilepsia, they just have a Sugerencias y Reclamos book, which you can read (though they told me it is not for me to read). You can see for instance that they addressed one complaint they got a lot, which was the lack of cashiers, so in fact with their remodel five years ago they changed it completely so they now have up to 8 cashiers at a time, and short wait times. My favorite Chilean pharmacy, I'll repeat here the comment I left for that charity: "Un siete!"
Like the complaints at Liga Chilena Contra la Epilepsia, they just have a Sugerencias y Reclamos book, which you can read (though they told me it is not for me to read). You can see for instance that they addressed one complaint they got a lot, which was the lack of cashiers, so in fact with their remodel five years ago they changed it completely so they now have up to 8 cashiers at a time, and short wait times. My favorite Chilean pharmacy, I'll repeat here the comment I left for that charity: "Un siete!"
> even when the donor sincerely believes they're doing what's best for people ...
They are wealthy people who have no experience or knowledge of what people without wealth need.
They are wealthy people who have no experience or knowledge of what people without wealth need.
To be fair, that also describes a large portion of politicians.
I don't agree. Politicians aren't perfect, but they hear from their constituents a lot, especially the unhappy ones.
I've thought about this in the context of charities, since the US is a highly charitable country, with popular distrust of the government, yet is relatively impoverished compared to some other advanced countries. From the viewpoint of the beneficiaries of charity, who I presume are the poor, do they tend to be better off in countries where they are heavily supported by private charity, or in countries where taxes pay to support generous public institutions?
I think this is a faulty premise. The US is actually quite heavily taxed, at a level greater than most of the OECD and many European countries, Especially in nominal dollars collected, but also as a percent of GDP, or when adjusting for local costs (PPP).
In the US, when you add federal, state, and local revenue, about $8.3 trillion dollars are collected in taxes and fees. The GDP of the US is $20 trillion, so 40% of every dollar produced goes to the government.
This is about $25,000 of tax per person, or $32,000 if you only count adults.
My personal thought is that the main difference between the US and countries with generous public institutions is not the amount of tax revenue collected, but the percent of that revenue effectively spent on said institutions.
In the US, when you add federal, state, and local revenue, about $8.3 trillion dollars are collected in taxes and fees. The GDP of the US is $20 trillion, so 40% of every dollar produced goes to the government.
This is about $25,000 of tax per person, or $32,000 if you only count adults.
My personal thought is that the main difference between the US and countries with generous public institutions is not the amount of tax revenue collected, but the percent of that revenue effectively spent on said institutions.
The tax break is only around 20% of the donation. Even if the donated money is not spent as perfectly as you would like, there's 5 times as much of it.
Exactly. You would have to believe that taxes do 5x more public good per dollar than charities.
With defense spending, pet projects, and incompetence, it is hard to make a case that they are on parity.
With defense spending, pet projects, and incompetence, it is hard to make a case that they are on parity.
Huh? My marginal tax rate is ~45%. I get way more than a 20% benefit from 501c3 donations.
I get to avoid capital gains on the donation of appreciated assets on top of that.
For whom is the benefit only 20%?
I get to avoid capital gains on the donation of appreciated assets on top of that.
For whom is the benefit only 20%?
Long term capital gains tax is 15%. The vast majority of these are against capital gains, not income.
The tax break for SALT works exactly the same way, no?
donations aren’t limited, they are capped via a %
the salt is called via a $
different political things, but the salt cap was a punitive thing purely for you to have resentment about where you live, it’s interesting that instead you got resentment for non profits
republicans want you to have resentment at high tax states run by democrats, so that you consider regime change in that state
the salt is called via a $
different political things, but the salt cap was a punitive thing purely for you to have resentment about where you live, it’s interesting that instead you got resentment for non profits
republicans want you to have resentment at high tax states run by democrats, so that you consider regime change in that state
No, but it's troubling to know that some of these non profits will live forever. I can setup a foundation whose goal is to fund an ugly aspect of society. If I give it enough money the foundation can live forever thru wise investments of its endowment. There would be nothing to stop it from doing its work forever. The foundation can even influence political causes by funding research that support the foundation's cause. The tax except foundation can't directly lobby but it can fund research that will have a political impact.
Charitable foundations should have a finite number of years to do their work.
Charitable foundations should have a finite number of years to do their work.
It’s really hard to find examples of pernicious institutions set up this way.
The Prohibition Party is still around because of a trust that funds them indefinitely.
But nobody cares about the Prohibition Party.
Some ecclesiastical organizations have this sort of perpetual funding. Sometimes via taxes, and sometimes investments.
But it doesn’t make the organizations insanely powerful. The Catholic Church in Germany is hardly a political player.
Trinity Church in New York has a billion dollar endowment. They’re not big players in the US religious landscape.
Real power requires more than money.
It seems what it does is ensures some person 150 years from now will have a cushy job with little power or responsibility, but lots of cash.
The Prohibition Party is still around because of a trust that funds them indefinitely.
But nobody cares about the Prohibition Party.
Some ecclesiastical organizations have this sort of perpetual funding. Sometimes via taxes, and sometimes investments.
But it doesn’t make the organizations insanely powerful. The Catholic Church in Germany is hardly a political player.
Trinity Church in New York has a billion dollar endowment. They’re not big players in the US religious landscape.
Real power requires more than money.
It seems what it does is ensures some person 150 years from now will have a cushy job with little power or responsibility, but lots of cash.
The original parent organization to modern Planned Parenthood had some pretty abhorrent for the modern times views, and there is evidence to suggest it still has similar aims disguised in a broader social agenda.
> I can setup a foundation whose goal is to fund an ugly aspect of society.
and why do you get to claim such an aspect is "ugly"?
If society, as a whole (or majority) decides such an aspect is ugly, then they can put a law in to outlaw it.
The problem isn't at this level of non-profit orgs - the problem is at the civil participation. most people don't participate (not even vote). So those who do get more say, by relative participation rates.
and why do you get to claim such an aspect is "ugly"?
If society, as a whole (or majority) decides such an aspect is ugly, then they can put a law in to outlaw it.
The problem isn't at this level of non-profit orgs - the problem is at the civil participation. most people don't participate (not even vote). So those who do get more say, by relative participation rates.
If society, as a whole (or majority) decides such an aspect is ugly, then they can put a law in to outlaw it.
It is good in theory, but does it work in practice though? For example, majority of the country supports $15 minimum wage, access to abortion, maternity leave etc. Doesn't mean any of this is happening. There are so many "think tanks" and non-profits whose sole job is to advocate shitty ideas of their ultra rich patrons. A small minority with huge resources can consistently do stuff that the rest of us can only dream of.
Even if civil participation is good, a well funded foundation can twist and turn the narrative to their advantage and confuse the voters.
It is good in theory, but does it work in practice though? For example, majority of the country supports $15 minimum wage, access to abortion, maternity leave etc. Doesn't mean any of this is happening. There are so many "think tanks" and non-profits whose sole job is to advocate shitty ideas of their ultra rich patrons. A small minority with huge resources can consistently do stuff that the rest of us can only dream of.
Even if civil participation is good, a well funded foundation can twist and turn the narrative to their advantage and confuse the voters.
> majority of the country supports $15 minimum wage, access to abortion, maternity leave etc. Doesn't mean any of this is happening.
That majority is not evenly distributed across the country. In areas where those people do form a majority, they do enact laws supporting those things. In areas where there is not a majority supporting those things, they don't.
That majority is not evenly distributed across the country. In areas where those people do form a majority, they do enact laws supporting those things. In areas where there is not a majority supporting those things, they don't.
What makes you think the majority supports this?
Don't worry: some dumbass will end up drawing a large salary to "host galas and fundraising". Unlikely any organization can survive to operate in its primary purpose past a few generations.
What's the difference between "putting all your wealth in a foundation that will do your bidding after you die" and "donating all your wealth to the most like-minded person that will continue to do your bidding after you die"? Sure, the latter isn't 100%, but the former isn't 100% either (regulations can change in the future), and even disregarding that, are we suddenly okay with it if the chance that your bidding will be carried out is 99% rather than 100%?
> What's the difference between "putting all your wealth in a foundation that will do your bidding after you die" and "donating all your wealth to the most like-minded person that will continue to do your bidding after you die"? Sure, the latter isn't 100%, but the former isn't 100% either (regulations can change in the future), and even disregarding that, are we suddenly okay with it if the chance that your bidding will be carried out is 99% rather than 100%?
That 99% compounds though. Sure, maybe you find someone pretty like-minded. 50 years from now, are they going to be able to find someone 50 years younger than them but just as like-minded? And their replacement 50 years on? Realistically you couldn't maintain any objective that was too far out of line with the general culture.
That 99% compounds though. Sure, maybe you find someone pretty like-minded. 50 years from now, are they going to be able to find someone 50 years younger than them but just as like-minded? And their replacement 50 years on? Realistically you couldn't maintain any objective that was too far out of line with the general culture.
Foundation is a great way to do that because you can swap the board/trustees out for other natural persons indefinitely
And the bylaws can force this too
And the bylaws can force this too
> Still, concerns about political equity—bearing in mind that philanthropy is only one of the ways in which capital can be converted into power—deserve systematic and rigorous investigation. Several universities have created centers for the research. It’s either apt or ironic that philanthropy pays for this, too.
Yeah, and I'm sure those research centers will be completely unbiased and unafraid to bite the hand that feeds them...
Yeah, and I'm sure those research centers will be completely unbiased and unafraid to bite the hand that feeds them...
In the best traditions of newspeak, the term 'philanthropy' doesn't specify the exact beneficiaries of the 'love' being addressed just like the phrase 'eradication of poverty' doesn't specify the exact means of said eradication.
Skimmed through. Here’s a thought: What’s the alternative to philanthropy? If the answer is “democracy“, what does it mean in this context?
To me, that means an elected body that decides through representation what is the best use of funds. It does so with no direct oversight, or “unacceptable paternalism”.
Sounds an awful lot like a government, doesn’t it? How does a government raise funds? Through taxes (simplified view for the sake of argument. Ignore printing money and selling treasury bonds for a moment).
But this is how we function already. So in lieu of philanthropy, can we create a new class of voluntary tax? Or raise taxes on high income? Considering that philanthropy is a purely voluntary act - I think forcing anyone is against that spirit and a voluntary tax, or volunteering funding of govt projects could be the solution.
Having said that, I fail to see how this will not also get politicized and lead to greater influence for the donors.
I’m not sure if there’s a way to accomplish that while still keeping things voluntary, in the spirit of philanthropy.
To me, that means an elected body that decides through representation what is the best use of funds. It does so with no direct oversight, or “unacceptable paternalism”.
Sounds an awful lot like a government, doesn’t it? How does a government raise funds? Through taxes (simplified view for the sake of argument. Ignore printing money and selling treasury bonds for a moment).
But this is how we function already. So in lieu of philanthropy, can we create a new class of voluntary tax? Or raise taxes on high income? Considering that philanthropy is a purely voluntary act - I think forcing anyone is against that spirit and a voluntary tax, or volunteering funding of govt projects could be the solution.
Having said that, I fail to see how this will not also get politicized and lead to greater influence for the donors.
I’m not sure if there’s a way to accomplish that while still keeping things voluntary, in the spirit of philanthropy.
If you want to voluntarily engage in a 'public' philanthropy ran by the government, you can just buy a government bond.
Alternatively, the fed and every state accepts donations.
The number of people that actively donate to the government is quite small while the number that advocate for higher tax rate on others is quite High.
Meanwhile, the state of California just celebrated a record tax year collecting a hundred billion dollars (30%) over the budget, and is struggling to find programs to squander it on.
The number of people that actively donate to the government is quite small while the number that advocate for higher tax rate on others is quite High.
Meanwhile, the state of California just celebrated a record tax year collecting a hundred billion dollars (30%) over the budget, and is struggling to find programs to squander it on.
> The number of people that actively donate to the government is quite small while the number that advocate for higher tax rate on others is quite High.
So? It's reasonable to advocate higher taxes for all while not harming oneself for much more limited public benefit in the meantime. This often gets trotted out as a "gotcha", but it's not.
So? It's reasonable to advocate higher taxes for all while not harming oneself for much more limited public benefit in the meantime. This often gets trotted out as a "gotcha", but it's not.
First, I don't understand the logic of more taxes are good, but refusing to donate until others do it too. It seems that the harm is the same either way, and the benefit/$ is the same either way too.
(e.g. I can save a life with a dollar donation today, but wont do it until you agree to do it too so we can save 2 lives with 2 dollars)
In my mind, either you don't actually want to pay, or you don't actually think your donation will bring about public benefit you claim.
Second, I almost never see advocacy for higher taxes for all (including themselves). IMHO it is nearly always a call for higher taxes for some sub-group (usually others), and usually applied in a progressive manner.
(e.g. I can save a life with a dollar donation today, but wont do it until you agree to do it too so we can save 2 lives with 2 dollars)
In my mind, either you don't actually want to pay, or you don't actually think your donation will bring about public benefit you claim.
Second, I almost never see advocacy for higher taxes for all (including themselves). IMHO it is nearly always a call for higher taxes for some sub-group (usually others), and usually applied in a progressive manner.
> First, I don't understand the logic of more taxes are good, but refusing to donate until others do it too. It seems that the harm is the same either way, and the benefit/$ is the same either way too.
If taxes go up, I receive X harm (lost dollars) and X + [huge number] of dollars go to the government.
If I give X dollars to the government, I receive exactly the same harm, but the benefit to the government is just X.
Identical harm to me either way, but one situation provides far more funding.
Further, voluntary contributions in a competitive society disadvantage the donor vs. everyone who chooses not to donate. Taxes (assuming fair application) remove this factor.
> Second, I almost never see advocacy for higher taxes for all (including themselves). IMHO it is nearly always a call for higher taxes for some sub-group (usually others), and usually applied in a progressive manner.
Progressive taxes are applied to all equally (accounting tricks and such aside—the intention is equal application).
My first dollar of reported income is taxed the same rate as anyone else's from the same sort of source.
So's my millionth dollar—I just don't happen to have that many dollars of annual income, so there's nothing to tax at that rate. Same as how a person with no income at all doesn't pay tax on that first dollar, since they don't have it to begin with.
Also, there are quite a few rich folks around who've consistently advocated for higher taxes on the rich. Buffett's well-known for that stance, but is far from the only one.
If taxes go up, I receive X harm (lost dollars) and X + [huge number] of dollars go to the government.
If I give X dollars to the government, I receive exactly the same harm, but the benefit to the government is just X.
Identical harm to me either way, but one situation provides far more funding.
Further, voluntary contributions in a competitive society disadvantage the donor vs. everyone who chooses not to donate. Taxes (assuming fair application) remove this factor.
> Second, I almost never see advocacy for higher taxes for all (including themselves). IMHO it is nearly always a call for higher taxes for some sub-group (usually others), and usually applied in a progressive manner.
Progressive taxes are applied to all equally (accounting tricks and such aside—the intention is equal application).
My first dollar of reported income is taxed the same rate as anyone else's from the same sort of source.
So's my millionth dollar—I just don't happen to have that many dollars of annual income, so there's nothing to tax at that rate. Same as how a person with no income at all doesn't pay tax on that first dollar, since they don't have it to begin with.
Also, there are quite a few rich folks around who've consistently advocated for higher taxes on the rich. Buffett's well-known for that stance, but is far from the only one.
Re 1)...
Im genuinely interested in understanding your first position because I still don't get it.
I would understand advocating for a universal tax increase + huge benefit while donating in the mean time, just not why it isn't worth it to you today.
If you think (X harm)(number of taxpayers) to save (Y lives)(number of taxpayers) is worth it, shouldn't that hold just as true for your personal case of X(1) and Y(1)?
I get that advocating that it would be better if everyone were to do it, just not that it is not worth it individually as well.
The harm you suffer is the same either way, and the benefit you provide to society is the same.
Is there more to it than the competitive disadvantage? Is the competitive disadvantage so great that is not worth giving any any amount to a Noble cause, even $1?
Re 2)....
>Progressive taxes are applied to all equally (accounting tricks and such aside—the intention is equal application).
This is a separate question which I doubt we will be able to see eye to eye on.
It reminds me of the famous Anatole France quote: “The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread.”
A law can be applied universally, but still target specific individuals. A law taxing the top 1% can be applied universally but obviously only harms the 1% and not the 99%.
That is not to say that a tax on the 1% isn't a bad idea, but I do feel it is disingenuous for the 99% to say that we too are equally subject to the law, as if they are equally harmed.
A more honest description would be "we want to harm the 1%, because we think that the majority would stand to benefit"
Im genuinely interested in understanding your first position because I still don't get it.
I would understand advocating for a universal tax increase + huge benefit while donating in the mean time, just not why it isn't worth it to you today.
If you think (X harm)(number of taxpayers) to save (Y lives)(number of taxpayers) is worth it, shouldn't that hold just as true for your personal case of X(1) and Y(1)?
I get that advocating that it would be better if everyone were to do it, just not that it is not worth it individually as well.
The harm you suffer is the same either way, and the benefit you provide to society is the same.
Is there more to it than the competitive disadvantage? Is the competitive disadvantage so great that is not worth giving any any amount to a Noble cause, even $1?
Re 2)....
>Progressive taxes are applied to all equally (accounting tricks and such aside—the intention is equal application).
This is a separate question which I doubt we will be able to see eye to eye on.
It reminds me of the famous Anatole France quote: “The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread.”
A law can be applied universally, but still target specific individuals. A law taxing the top 1% can be applied universally but obviously only harms the 1% and not the 99%.
That is not to say that a tax on the 1% isn't a bad idea, but I do feel it is disingenuous for the 99% to say that we too are equally subject to the law, as if they are equally harmed.
A more honest description would be "we want to harm the 1%, because we think that the majority would stand to benefit"
Re 1):
There are a lot of reasons it can be reasonable to advocate higher taxes while not donating money to the government. Aside from what I already covered, it might be that a donation isn't reliable or predictable as ordinary tax income, so a donation in fact may not provide as much value per dollar as tax increases. You can't plan a budget around voluntary donations amounting to 0.1% of your total intake for the year, which weren't expected in the first place and may not show up next year. Consider the difference between winning $1200 on a scratcher ticket, versus $100/m increased income indefinitely. You may win $1200 again next year, but you might not, while a guaranteed $100/m is something you can count on and factor into your budget. Or the donor may perceive their peers to be free riding on the benefits their money provides (in the form of a more-stable society, et c.) if they simply donate the cash, so prefer taxation to donation. Or they may believe the reduction in power of the rich to influence society is part of the benefit of taxing the rich more, in the first place, in which case voluntarily reducing their own power is hardly a solution, and may even be counter-productive if that money could have funded advocacy for raising taxes on the rich, instead (or any of several similar reasons one, including a rich "one", may have to advocate for changes to the tax code that happen to increase one's own taxes, that aren't strictly related to increasing the government's budget).
At a level lower than the rich, it may be easier to follow: it can be consistent for me to believe that we should all pay more taxes to increase the budget for our school district, while not donating the difference myself, because I believe I need that money to cover deficiencies in their services until such time as a tax increase passes. Or, to take the harm angle again, consider the effect one person donating $500/m to schools has. $500/m is a lot of money for an individual (well, maybe not on HN, but for most folks it is). It hurts quite a bit to give that away. However, it does almost nothing for the district's budget, especially if they can't count on you continuing to donate it. Now, $500/household (I'm using simple figures to keep this clear, of course it never works like this exactly) in the whole district? By law, not just relying on people's whims? Now the schools can really do something with it (or waste it, but if you think they're just gonna waste it, you're also not gonna donate the money, so that's outside the scope of this).
As for 2: yeah, I was equivocating a bit :-) Still, in a world where marginal-utility sure appears to be a real thing as far as how people experience money, one person's one-millionth dollar really isn't the same thing as their first dollar, and it doesn't make much sense to treat dollars $1 and $1,000,000 the same just because some people don't have that millionth dollar in the first place.
Ultimately, one's view on progressive taxation will come down to what one believes fairness is, which is... harder to nail down than one might think, and reasonable people can disagree.
There are a lot of reasons it can be reasonable to advocate higher taxes while not donating money to the government. Aside from what I already covered, it might be that a donation isn't reliable or predictable as ordinary tax income, so a donation in fact may not provide as much value per dollar as tax increases. You can't plan a budget around voluntary donations amounting to 0.1% of your total intake for the year, which weren't expected in the first place and may not show up next year. Consider the difference between winning $1200 on a scratcher ticket, versus $100/m increased income indefinitely. You may win $1200 again next year, but you might not, while a guaranteed $100/m is something you can count on and factor into your budget. Or the donor may perceive their peers to be free riding on the benefits their money provides (in the form of a more-stable society, et c.) if they simply donate the cash, so prefer taxation to donation. Or they may believe the reduction in power of the rich to influence society is part of the benefit of taxing the rich more, in the first place, in which case voluntarily reducing their own power is hardly a solution, and may even be counter-productive if that money could have funded advocacy for raising taxes on the rich, instead (or any of several similar reasons one, including a rich "one", may have to advocate for changes to the tax code that happen to increase one's own taxes, that aren't strictly related to increasing the government's budget).
At a level lower than the rich, it may be easier to follow: it can be consistent for me to believe that we should all pay more taxes to increase the budget for our school district, while not donating the difference myself, because I believe I need that money to cover deficiencies in their services until such time as a tax increase passes. Or, to take the harm angle again, consider the effect one person donating $500/m to schools has. $500/m is a lot of money for an individual (well, maybe not on HN, but for most folks it is). It hurts quite a bit to give that away. However, it does almost nothing for the district's budget, especially if they can't count on you continuing to donate it. Now, $500/household (I'm using simple figures to keep this clear, of course it never works like this exactly) in the whole district? By law, not just relying on people's whims? Now the schools can really do something with it (or waste it, but if you think they're just gonna waste it, you're also not gonna donate the money, so that's outside the scope of this).
As for 2: yeah, I was equivocating a bit :-) Still, in a world where marginal-utility sure appears to be a real thing as far as how people experience money, one person's one-millionth dollar really isn't the same thing as their first dollar, and it doesn't make much sense to treat dollars $1 and $1,000,000 the same just because some people don't have that millionth dollar in the first place.
Ultimately, one's view on progressive taxation will come down to what one believes fairness is, which is... harder to nail down than one might think, and reasonable people can disagree.
Thanks for bearing with me. I think some of the examples you gave good and rational reasons why some people might defer contributing to a valid cause on an individual level. There are a class of problems that do require scale, and some cases were the individual is preoccupied with mitigating their personal harm instead of addressing the root cause of the problem.
I think there are some cases where this is certainly the case.
The topic at large is a bit of a sore spot for me because I think many people use aspirations to collective action as excuse not to take personal action. There are also tons of problems where immediate action can be taken on on the individual or local level, and instances where individual or local action is far more effective than top down solutions!
There is a class of people that would essentially see a starving child, want to help, but do nothing while waiting for 350 million people to (maybe) come to consensus on some federal solution. It is some sort of learned helplessness where people are scared to take personal action. I think the free rider concern also plays a part, but don't particularly respect it. It is like saying I'm going to let the child in front of my house starve until my neighbor agrees to feed the child in front of their house too. Sometimes people should do the good thing because it is good and lead by example, and especially so when the valid situations you raised do not apply.
I think there are some cases where this is certainly the case.
The topic at large is a bit of a sore spot for me because I think many people use aspirations to collective action as excuse not to take personal action. There are also tons of problems where immediate action can be taken on on the individual or local level, and instances where individual or local action is far more effective than top down solutions!
There is a class of people that would essentially see a starving child, want to help, but do nothing while waiting for 350 million people to (maybe) come to consensus on some federal solution. It is some sort of learned helplessness where people are scared to take personal action. I think the free rider concern also plays a part, but don't particularly respect it. It is like saying I'm going to let the child in front of my house starve until my neighbor agrees to feed the child in front of their house too. Sometimes people should do the good thing because it is good and lead by example, and especially so when the valid situations you raised do not apply.
https://wwe.youtube.com/watch?v=d_zt3kGW1NM
Although not directly related.
> Much philanthropy is a routinized exchange between salaried bureaucrats
...And much isn't...
...And much isn't...
Weirdly, though it sounds negative out of context, this line in the article is trying to portray this as a good thing, in comparison to some rich guy who lives elsewhere ruining your local school system for no good reason.
"They who have founded philanthropic institutions, such as no other country can boast of! Philanthropic institutions forsooth! As though you rendered the proletarians a service in first sucking out their very life-blood and then practising your self-complacent, Pharisaic philanthropy upon them, placing yourselves before the world as mighty benefactors of humanity when you give back to the plundered victims the hundredth part of what belongs to them! Charity which degrades him who gives more than him who takes; charity which treads the downtrodden still deeper in the dust, which demands that the degraded, the pariah cast out by society, shall first surrender the last that remains to him, his very claim to manhood, shall first beg for mercy before your mercy deigns to press, in the shape of an alms, the brand of degradation upon his brow."
Karl Marx
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/condition-w...
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/condition-w...
> “Charity is a cold, grey, loveless thing. If a rich man wants to help the poor, he should pay his taxes gladly, not dole out money at whim.”
Clement Attlee, 1920
Clement Attlee, 1920
"routinized" is not a word.
Too many people to help. Corruption. Self sustainability. But yeah it is nice to try.
> it is nice to try
We do more than try, we provide critical services to huge numbers of people. Nothing will ever be perfect, but if the standard is 100% or failure, then no point in getting out of bed in the morning.
We do more than try, we provide critical services to huge numbers of people. Nothing will ever be perfect, but if the standard is 100% or failure, then no point in getting out of bed in the morning.
i imagine it would be possible to annonimize donations via a 3rd party and limit the peaks by spreading them out over time. Like a max increase in monthly budget.
But im not sure how that would negatively affect budgeting
But im not sure how that would negatively affect budgeting
philan trophy
english is beautiful
english is beautiful
Yup. Money isn't the issue with nonprofits (well aside from paying your execs multiples of the max on the GS scale while whining if the low level staffers ask to be paid in line with the GS payscale)
The issue is they pay their executives $$$$$ while insisting low level employees take much less than they'd make as government employees while feeling entitled to shape someone's career for the rest of their LIFE if they leave the organization on bad terms.
Someone told me "no one gets fired on K street". I did. I moved in with my parents, learned to code, and signed a lease in line with my budget on an apartment in my home county, where yet another nonprofit profited from my knowledge while abusing me.
Ex: look at page 7 here:
https://cdt.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/CDT-2015-990-FINA...
Then look here:
https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/pay-leave/salaries...
The entitlement of these entities is astounding.
You can only repeat the same confidence tricks so many times before men with guns come into your house like it's Belfast in the 80s or you have civil unrest on an unprecedented scale.
I've interviewed places that went on to full on unionize, then applied again after the unionization thinking I could discard my previous extremely disrespectful experiences that were hand waved away, only to have people conduct the process like I'm trying to order a vodka mate at Waterfall[6].
(As in conducting the interview with dripping sarcasm and a tone like they're going to try to put a cigarette out on me, which is not something I want done, though thanks for the hole in my best black t-shirt because I decided to go to the club they didn't write about in LA Times or whatever.)
I'm gonna swing back to a research project I'm working on in a moment, but it says everything about thew state of nonprofits all the world over that when back before the 2020 election, I asked my bank for a safe deposit box and a funeral home for a pointer on someone who can draw up a will that it felt like the entire planet lost their minds. (They didn't help with either, since I'm not a boomer, and so I closed my account. Enjoy the bank run and stock crash, you rude little woman!)
The insurrection was illegal, and murder is bad, but unfortunately I think it took events like that, or the power failure in Texas[2] or the condo collapse in Florida[3] are what it took to teach folks that pairing no income tax at the state level with hatred of "feds" and sales tax will end with you sitting alone in your McMansion or condo, wondering if it will collapse in on you due to an extreme weather event, or a nuclear strike conducted by a rouge state you insisted via your purposefully terrible voting be handled with kid gloves[4][5].
At the end of the day, the world we are seeing on the news today is the one that folks from generations prior to mine (including GenX) very violently insisted on.
I'm on the autistic spectrum -- I know people sometimes say one thing and mean another, so all I can do is try to put enough information out there that people can try to make good decisions under uncertainty.
(I wrote the above while pounding espresso that I put on my Capital One[8] card, since based on my interactions with their employees I don't think they care if I pay my bill, and there's no cash in MY wallet.)
[1] https://gizmodo.com/google-funded-think-tank-fires-google-cr... [2] https://www.npr.org/2021/02/17/968577281/what-went-wrong-wit... [3] https://www.npr.org/2021/08/26/1031245430/surfside-condo-col... [4] https://www.npr.org/2022/05/21/1100547908/russia-ends-natura... [5] https://www.npr.org/2022/01/15/1072385995/north-korea-is-tes... [6] http://water-gate.de/de/contact/location/location.html [7] I changed my SSID, you're not as smart as you think :-) [8] https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2019/08/woman-accused-of...
The issue is they pay their executives $$$$$ while insisting low level employees take much less than they'd make as government employees while feeling entitled to shape someone's career for the rest of their LIFE if they leave the organization on bad terms.
Someone told me "no one gets fired on K street". I did. I moved in with my parents, learned to code, and signed a lease in line with my budget on an apartment in my home county, where yet another nonprofit profited from my knowledge while abusing me.
Ex: look at page 7 here:
https://cdt.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/CDT-2015-990-FINA...
Then look here:
https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/pay-leave/salaries...
The entitlement of these entities is astounding.
You can only repeat the same confidence tricks so many times before men with guns come into your house like it's Belfast in the 80s or you have civil unrest on an unprecedented scale.
I've interviewed places that went on to full on unionize, then applied again after the unionization thinking I could discard my previous extremely disrespectful experiences that were hand waved away, only to have people conduct the process like I'm trying to order a vodka mate at Waterfall[6].
(As in conducting the interview with dripping sarcasm and a tone like they're going to try to put a cigarette out on me, which is not something I want done, though thanks for the hole in my best black t-shirt because I decided to go to the club they didn't write about in LA Times or whatever.)
I'm gonna swing back to a research project I'm working on in a moment, but it says everything about thew state of nonprofits all the world over that when back before the 2020 election, I asked my bank for a safe deposit box and a funeral home for a pointer on someone who can draw up a will that it felt like the entire planet lost their minds. (They didn't help with either, since I'm not a boomer, and so I closed my account. Enjoy the bank run and stock crash, you rude little woman!)
The insurrection was illegal, and murder is bad, but unfortunately I think it took events like that, or the power failure in Texas[2] or the condo collapse in Florida[3] are what it took to teach folks that pairing no income tax at the state level with hatred of "feds" and sales tax will end with you sitting alone in your McMansion or condo, wondering if it will collapse in on you due to an extreme weather event, or a nuclear strike conducted by a rouge state you insisted via your purposefully terrible voting be handled with kid gloves[4][5].
At the end of the day, the world we are seeing on the news today is the one that folks from generations prior to mine (including GenX) very violently insisted on.
I'm on the autistic spectrum -- I know people sometimes say one thing and mean another, so all I can do is try to put enough information out there that people can try to make good decisions under uncertainty.
(I wrote the above while pounding espresso that I put on my Capital One[8] card, since based on my interactions with their employees I don't think they care if I pay my bill, and there's no cash in MY wallet.)
[1] https://gizmodo.com/google-funded-think-tank-fires-google-cr... [2] https://www.npr.org/2021/02/17/968577281/what-went-wrong-wit... [3] https://www.npr.org/2021/08/26/1031245430/surfside-condo-col... [4] https://www.npr.org/2022/05/21/1100547908/russia-ends-natura... [5] https://www.npr.org/2022/01/15/1072385995/north-korea-is-tes... [6] http://water-gate.de/de/contact/location/location.html [7] I changed my SSID, you're not as smart as you think :-) [8] https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2019/08/woman-accused-of...
the two pay scales you posted are not a complete picture. The CEO in the non-profit makes $397,684, while the top GS15 step 10 makes $176,300.
First, the more appropriate comparison would be the Senior Executive Service (SES) pay scale which tops out at $226,300.
Additionally, a non-profit executive takes retirement out of their earnings of $400K, while the government employee's retirement is guaranteed and does not come out of their $226K.
First, the more appropriate comparison would be the Senior Executive Service (SES) pay scale which tops out at $226,300.
Additionally, a non-profit executive takes retirement out of their earnings of $400K, while the government employee's retirement is guaranteed and does not come out of their $226K.
Hi WaitWaitWha,
Thanks for your thoughtful reply.
>First, the two pay scales you posted are not a complete picture. The CEO in the non-profit makes $397,684, while the top GS15 step 10 makes $176,300. First, the more appropriate comparison would be the Senior Executive Service (SES) pay scale which tops out at $226,300. Additionally, a non-profit executive takes retirement out of their earnings of $400K, while the government employee's retirement is guaranteed and does not come out of their $226K.
You're correct my reply was not completely accurate with regard to numbers, so thanks for that.
But, to be clear the issue is the CEO justified folks payrates (mostly attorneys recently out of law school from across the T14) based on what a JD would make on the GS scale[0], while conversely the executives, as you can see from the data, made more.
This was also a smaller nonprofit, I've met folks with similar salaries but much larger teams or orgs.
Meanwhile, here it is clearly stated that someone with "3 years of graduate-level education leading to a Ph.D. degree or Ph.D. degree or equivalent doctoral degree" should make GS-11 (not clear on what step):
https://www.generalschedule.org/articles/general-schedule-ed...
Also, to be CRYSTAL clear:
I also did not CHOOSE nonprofits.
It was my perception they refused to hire me because if things like very openly stating I would not be applying to the NSA because I was worried I'd be asked to engage in illegal activities, based on my readings on cases like Jewel v. NSA[2].
When I was charting career paths I also (verbally) expressed concern about scholarship for service -- that a president might institute a government shutdown or otherwise interfere with folks ability to fulfill the requirements, causing them to be forced to pay the loans bqack, which IIRC happened during the Trump administration:
https://www.cyberscoop.com/government-shutdown-cybersecurity...
(In fact, one the last decent contact I had in the federal government stopped speaking to me when I tried to clarify whay became of that fiasco, it's not in any publicly available news source I could find)
So from my perspective, by the time I was at Center for Democracy & Technology, we were in a "fall of the USSR" situation. I had to repeatedly tell people "this isn't high school" as I was stymied despite having more intelligence capabilities than some small countries.
That meant that absent a VERY compelling reason, if there is never a context where someone opposes me when I've done nothing my entire life but work as what only fairly recently has been termed a "public interest technologist", it makes me question people's integrity, especially paired with things like words and phrases from private conversations making their way into CDT whitepapers after my departure and after the new CEO refused to even interview me.
It is completely unacceptable that across two different leaders this pattern of gatekeeping access to employment has continued.
I emailed the dean at Georgetown, William Treanor, about the above mentioned plagiarism issue, but didn't get a substantive reply.
I am not a lawyer, but speaking as someone who has not crossed an international border since the Obama administration, it's my understanding espionage is a capital offense... so on a long enough timeline if I cannot understand why people are making hiring decisions, paired with rampant illegal behavior, paired with refusals to connect me with work or compensate me for past harms, then all I can do is openly muse what motivates folks as I read and respond to publicly available information.
For context, I currently reside in the City of Pittsburgh.
I am tired of writing out long paragraphs like the above.
The last time I put this much energy into a post on the internet, a crowd formed outside the Mayor's house, and we got a new one. Then the Boy Scouts went bankrupt, and Mike Doyle (the cult adjacent[1] congressman) decided not to run for another term.
In closing, I feel that I was underpaid, illegally fired, then subjected to electronic and physical attacks by members of so called civil society.
I encourage anyone who desires to, to read the above and reply.
I'm happy to have a discussion.
I will do my best to be honest and accurate, but it may "trigger" some folks who aren't used to having hard questions asked in a public forum.
Have a nice evening, and thanks again for those numbers, sincerely.
[0] https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/pay-leave/salaries... [1] https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2010/09/13/frat-house-for... [2] https://www.eff.org/files/filenode/jewel/jewel.complaint.pdf
Thanks for your thoughtful reply.
>First, the two pay scales you posted are not a complete picture. The CEO in the non-profit makes $397,684, while the top GS15 step 10 makes $176,300. First, the more appropriate comparison would be the Senior Executive Service (SES) pay scale which tops out at $226,300. Additionally, a non-profit executive takes retirement out of their earnings of $400K, while the government employee's retirement is guaranteed and does not come out of their $226K.
You're correct my reply was not completely accurate with regard to numbers, so thanks for that.
But, to be clear the issue is the CEO justified folks payrates (mostly attorneys recently out of law school from across the T14) based on what a JD would make on the GS scale[0], while conversely the executives, as you can see from the data, made more.
This was also a smaller nonprofit, I've met folks with similar salaries but much larger teams or orgs.
Meanwhile, here it is clearly stated that someone with "3 years of graduate-level education leading to a Ph.D. degree or Ph.D. degree or equivalent doctoral degree" should make GS-11 (not clear on what step):
https://www.generalschedule.org/articles/general-schedule-ed...
Also, to be CRYSTAL clear:
I also did not CHOOSE nonprofits.
It was my perception they refused to hire me because if things like very openly stating I would not be applying to the NSA because I was worried I'd be asked to engage in illegal activities, based on my readings on cases like Jewel v. NSA[2].
When I was charting career paths I also (verbally) expressed concern about scholarship for service -- that a president might institute a government shutdown or otherwise interfere with folks ability to fulfill the requirements, causing them to be forced to pay the loans bqack, which IIRC happened during the Trump administration:
https://www.cyberscoop.com/government-shutdown-cybersecurity...
(In fact, one the last decent contact I had in the federal government stopped speaking to me when I tried to clarify whay became of that fiasco, it's not in any publicly available news source I could find)
So from my perspective, by the time I was at Center for Democracy & Technology, we were in a "fall of the USSR" situation. I had to repeatedly tell people "this isn't high school" as I was stymied despite having more intelligence capabilities than some small countries.
That meant that absent a VERY compelling reason, if there is never a context where someone opposes me when I've done nothing my entire life but work as what only fairly recently has been termed a "public interest technologist", it makes me question people's integrity, especially paired with things like words and phrases from private conversations making their way into CDT whitepapers after my departure and after the new CEO refused to even interview me.
It is completely unacceptable that across two different leaders this pattern of gatekeeping access to employment has continued.
I emailed the dean at Georgetown, William Treanor, about the above mentioned plagiarism issue, but didn't get a substantive reply.
I am not a lawyer, but speaking as someone who has not crossed an international border since the Obama administration, it's my understanding espionage is a capital offense... so on a long enough timeline if I cannot understand why people are making hiring decisions, paired with rampant illegal behavior, paired with refusals to connect me with work or compensate me for past harms, then all I can do is openly muse what motivates folks as I read and respond to publicly available information.
For context, I currently reside in the City of Pittsburgh.
I am tired of writing out long paragraphs like the above.
The last time I put this much energy into a post on the internet, a crowd formed outside the Mayor's house, and we got a new one. Then the Boy Scouts went bankrupt, and Mike Doyle (the cult adjacent[1] congressman) decided not to run for another term.
In closing, I feel that I was underpaid, illegally fired, then subjected to electronic and physical attacks by members of so called civil society.
I encourage anyone who desires to, to read the above and reply.
I'm happy to have a discussion.
I will do my best to be honest and accurate, but it may "trigger" some folks who aren't used to having hard questions asked in a public forum.
Have a nice evening, and thanks again for those numbers, sincerely.
[0] https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/pay-leave/salaries... [1] https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2010/09/13/frat-house-for... [2] https://www.eff.org/files/filenode/jewel/jewel.complaint.pdf
Another only mildly disguised attack on democracy.
> If you’re used to thinking that our democratic system is in bad shape, that can sound jarring. But she’s working in the tradition of what philosophers call “ideal theory”; the aim is to sketch out what a good system would be, assuming that everyone fully complied with its rules.
I'm used to thinking that democracy is in poor shape because rich and powerful people prevent it from spreading further.
Which seems appropriate for this topic. But instead of diving into that, this author seems to take as a fairly key element of their argument that people getting stupid rich and then doing government type stuff without democratic oversight is good because the obvious alternative, democratic governance is fundamentally broken.
I'll check out the book by Emma Saunders-Hastings, “Private Virtues, Public Vices: Philanthropy and Democratic Equality” as its arguments sound pretty sensible.
> If you’re used to thinking that our democratic system is in bad shape, that can sound jarring. But she’s working in the tradition of what philosophers call “ideal theory”; the aim is to sketch out what a good system would be, assuming that everyone fully complied with its rules.
I'm used to thinking that democracy is in poor shape because rich and powerful people prevent it from spreading further.
Which seems appropriate for this topic. But instead of diving into that, this author seems to take as a fairly key element of their argument that people getting stupid rich and then doing government type stuff without democratic oversight is good because the obvious alternative, democratic governance is fundamentally broken.
I'll check out the book by Emma Saunders-Hastings, “Private Virtues, Public Vices: Philanthropy and Democratic Equality” as its arguments sound pretty sensible.
A pure democracy, a direct democracy, is no different than government though Facebook likes, everything becomes a popularity contest. You know, "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others".
"The people", as a collective entity, is extremely dumb, so I think that the faster the communication advances, the worse democracy has become.
"The people", as a collective entity, is extremely dumb, so I think that the faster the communication advances, the worse democracy has become.
That's why Switzerland is such a poor country and disappeared from the face of the Earth. The people who want you to believe other people are dumb and direct democracy is a bad thing are the ones benefiting the most from the current inbalanced form of government.
I mean if you think the people as a collective entiry are extremely dumb, why would you want any form of democracy or even society at all? Also, I have bad news for you but reallisticly speaking unless you are the unlikely strong outlier the average person is you (and me).
I mean if you think the people as a collective entiry are extremely dumb, why would you want any form of democracy or even society at all? Also, I have bad news for you but reallisticly speaking unless you are the unlikely strong outlier the average person is you (and me).
It clearly isn't impossible for direct democracy to work, but equally there is no guarantee that a measure that gets passed in that way will ever get implemented, or will be implemented in the way intended.
For a start, once the legislation hits reality and needs to be interpreted who decides how it was intended to be implemented? Who chooses which tradeoff should be made when measures conflict with each other? we had problems like this with Brexit in spades. We still have in the from of the relationship between Northern Ireland and the Republic, our leaving the EU free trade zone creates direct conflict with out obligations under the Good Friday agreement. Fortunately we have a government lead by a Brexiteer so I'm sure he'll have all that sorted out in no time.
In 2014 the Swiss passed an initiative to introduce quotas on immigration from the EU, in direct conflict with a treaty between Switzerland and the EU on free movement. It was never implemented.
None of these are the end of the world, but they are problems with the model that need to be taken into account and that direct democracy advocates need to address.
For a start, once the legislation hits reality and needs to be interpreted who decides how it was intended to be implemented? Who chooses which tradeoff should be made when measures conflict with each other? we had problems like this with Brexit in spades. We still have in the from of the relationship between Northern Ireland and the Republic, our leaving the EU free trade zone creates direct conflict with out obligations under the Good Friday agreement. Fortunately we have a government lead by a Brexiteer so I'm sure he'll have all that sorted out in no time.
In 2014 the Swiss passed an initiative to introduce quotas on immigration from the EU, in direct conflict with a treaty between Switzerland and the EU on free movement. It was never implemented.
None of these are the end of the world, but they are problems with the model that need to be taken into account and that direct democracy advocates need to address.
Assume everyone in a population governed by direct democracy is not "dumb." Then, there is still a need for checks against what political scientist Alexis de Tocqueville called the "tyranny of the majority."
From the United States National Endowment of the Humanities [0]: "In America, [Tocqueville] saw and praised a people who enjoyed an unprecedented equality of conditions and political and civil liberty without endangering order or prosperity. But he also saw and criticized the way white majorities supported the institution of slavery and the unjust treatment of free blacks and Native Americans. In fact, the greatest danger Americans faced was inherent in their treatment of unpopular minorities."
"The power of the democratic majority arises from the fact that every individual is assumed to be competent to guide his own life and is politically the equal of every other individual. In this situation, the greatest legitimate power will always be with the majority."
A lack of "intermediary institutions, [makes a country have] “no lasting obstacles” in the way of the opinions, prejudices, interests, and momentary passions of the majority and tends towards an unthinking despotism over unpopular minorities."
[0] https://edsitement.neh.gov/closer-readings/alexis-de-tocquev...
From the United States National Endowment of the Humanities [0]: "In America, [Tocqueville] saw and praised a people who enjoyed an unprecedented equality of conditions and political and civil liberty without endangering order or prosperity. But he also saw and criticized the way white majorities supported the institution of slavery and the unjust treatment of free blacks and Native Americans. In fact, the greatest danger Americans faced was inherent in their treatment of unpopular minorities."
"The power of the democratic majority arises from the fact that every individual is assumed to be competent to guide his own life and is politically the equal of every other individual. In this situation, the greatest legitimate power will always be with the majority."
A lack of "intermediary institutions, [makes a country have] “no lasting obstacles” in the way of the opinions, prejudices, interests, and momentary passions of the majority and tends towards an unthinking despotism over unpopular minorities."
[0] https://edsitement.neh.gov/closer-readings/alexis-de-tocquev...
So Alexis Charles Henri Clérel, comte de Tocquevill, touring the US at a time (1831) when Women, Black people, Jews, White men without property etc. were regularly unable to vote concludes that the big issue of concern is that the democratic majority might pass laws affecting a minority? That seems almost perverse.
Yes, but what if we freed the hostages and then they all went out and kidnapped someone? Then we (we being the previous kidnappers) would be no better off! Probably best not to rush into this new fangled democracy thing.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_voting_rights_in...
He's literally and openly writing a book on how with his guidance a democracy can run a society as 'well' as an aristocracy does.
Yes, but what if we freed the hostages and then they all went out and kidnapped someone? Then we (we being the previous kidnappers) would be no better off! Probably best not to rush into this new fangled democracy thing.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_voting_rights_in...
He's literally and openly writing a book on how with his guidance a democracy can run a society as 'well' as an aristocracy does.
> That's why Switzerland
Switzerland has the population of NYC, the city, not the metro area... and attracts the crème de la crème of a continent made of 740m people.
By the same token we should all swear by autocracy given how well are Singapore, UAE, Macao and Monaco faring.
Switzerland has the population of NYC, the city, not the metro area... and attracts the crème de la crème of a continent made of 740m people.
By the same token we should all swear by autocracy given how well are Singapore, UAE, Macao and Monaco faring.
> Switzerland has the population of NYC, the city, not the metro area... and attracts the crème de la crème of a continent made of 740m people.
Switzerland has a native population with the traditional flaws and usual repartition of a normal population. Your rebuke is the usual one. People like to pretend direct democracy wouldn’t work for their usual pet peeve which generally boils down to them thinking they are much better than their neighbours and when you point to them that their argument is completely disproved by the fact that it already works in an actual rich country they just declare it doesn’t count out of intellectual laziness.
Also yes autocracy can work if you are fine with its main flaws: unequal treatment of the population. China is a better exemple than the countries you suggested looking at.
Switzerland has a native population with the traditional flaws and usual repartition of a normal population. Your rebuke is the usual one. People like to pretend direct democracy wouldn’t work for their usual pet peeve which generally boils down to them thinking they are much better than their neighbours and when you point to them that their argument is completely disproved by the fact that it already works in an actual rich country they just declare it doesn’t count out of intellectual laziness.
Also yes autocracy can work if you are fine with its main flaws: unequal treatment of the population. China is a better exemple than the countries you suggested looking at.
I think your equation isn't apt. Facebook likes run through personalized networks and are fed to users by privately curated algorithms which prioritize engagement and serving ads to benefit: Facebook.
In contrast, a pure democracy would be open questions and elections to any adult who is a citizen, without algorithms and corporate motivation interceding. This would theoretically benefit the aggregate voter: the citizens who vote.
In contrast, a pure democracy would be open questions and elections to any adult who is a citizen, without algorithms and corporate motivation interceding. This would theoretically benefit the aggregate voter: the citizens who vote.
The problem with direct democracy is that nobody implementing popularly mandated policies has a stake in successfully implementing them. There's no personal commitment. In contrast if a politician or party proposes policies and gets elected, everybody knows who is responsible for implementing those policies successfully, and the electorate can and will hold them accountable for it. In an ideal direct democracy where all decisions are made by popular vote, the leaders implementing those policies are reduced to functionaries. Even if they supported some measures, they're still going to be expected to implement other measures they disagree with. We had that here in Britain recently and it's a recipe for political paralysis.
> the electorate can and will hold them accountable for it
In theory. In practice is this what we're actually seeing?
In Canada at least, I don't think political parties are being held accountable for the promises they make during election campaigns. There is a huge tendency to promise the moon and deliver the status quo.
In theory. In practice is this what we're actually seeing?
In Canada at least, I don't think political parties are being held accountable for the promises they make during election campaigns. There is a huge tendency to promise the moon and deliver the status quo.
In practice the electorate has to make a pragmatic selection between the choices available to them. Once party leadership and policies emerge, those are your choices, neither may be ideal but that's what you've got. You might very well suspect the politician you vote for won't achieve everything they want to, but maybe they'll deliver more than the other politicians. That sounds terrible, and it's not great, but at least it's realistic.
In direct democracy there's the illusion of zero compromise, you can end up with whatever wacky or amazing combination of initiatives you like, but in reality compromises still have to be made and priorities are going to conflict with each other. Somebody still need to implement all of that.
I just think it makes sense that the person (or party) doing the implementation and deciding on the compromises should be the person who made the commitment.
In direct democracy there's the illusion of zero compromise, you can end up with whatever wacky or amazing combination of initiatives you like, but in reality compromises still have to be made and priorities are going to conflict with each other. Somebody still need to implement all of that.
I just think it makes sense that the person (or party) doing the implementation and deciding on the compromises should be the person who made the commitment.
I think that the parlance has ruined the discourse here. There's nothing "pure" about simple majority direct democracy. We should say that a pure democracy is one in which all governance is established with unanimous support. A social contract signed by everyone. First past the post representative democracy leaves ~75% of the signatures off of the final form. That's pretty bad.
A good system needs to be resilient to people in power (the rule enforcers or sub-rule makers) not complying with the rules.
Governments aren't the only people in power in modern America, billionaire (philanthropist or otherwise) hold as much or more power than any politician.
>this author seems to take as a fairly key element of their argument that people getting stupid rich and then doing government type stuff without democratic oversight is good [...]
Which part is bad? The "government type stuff" or the "without democratic oversight"? I agree that billionaires fielding their own armies/police forces would be pretty bad, but what's wrong with funding homeless shelters or schools? If I decide to volunteer at a soup kitchen, am I also "doing government type stuff without democratic oversight"?
Which part is bad? The "government type stuff" or the "without democratic oversight"? I agree that billionaires fielding their own armies/police forces would be pretty bad, but what's wrong with funding homeless shelters or schools? If I decide to volunteer at a soup kitchen, am I also "doing government type stuff without democratic oversight"?
> but what's wrong with funding homeless shelters or schools?
You don't get to be fabulously wealthy without some of the second order effects of your wealth accumulation being unsavory. Generally speaking, these people will do things like run out competition, foster massive economic inequality, and perpetuate labor abuses to pad their bottom line and then buy the indulgences by doing a cosmetically "good" bit of philanthropy. But they probably could have done more good by doing their day job in a less exploitative way.
You don't get to be fabulously wealthy without some of the second order effects of your wealth accumulation being unsavory. Generally speaking, these people will do things like run out competition, foster massive economic inequality, and perpetuate labor abuses to pad their bottom line and then buy the indulgences by doing a cosmetically "good" bit of philanthropy. But they probably could have done more good by doing their day job in a less exploitative way.
Most of the time people don't do stuff just to be nice, it's because they want something. When our needs/desires are met as well, we feel good. Philanthropers, especially of the political nature, are trying to shape society and if leading examples are anything to go by they're influencing society to be more dependent on them and see it as okay.
That's what I took away from OP.
That's what I took away from OP.
To me, the key downside of philanthropy is the "without democratic oversight" part. It's all fine when the billionaires are funding homeless shelters or schools: things everyone can agree are a public good. We are extremely lucky that guys like Bill Gates suddenly got a soft spot for fighting malaria after amassing their fortunes. But nothing exists to stop these billionaires from donating to causes against the public good.
That's the problem. The public should define what "public good" means, not rich people. As inefficient as taxes/government is, at least the voters are theoretically in the driver's seat, and get to at least indirectly define public good through elected representatives. With philanthropy, we're simply letting a single wealthy demographic decide "this is public good, trust me bro", and the public can't vote out rich people if they disagree.
That's the problem. The public should define what "public good" means, not rich people. As inefficient as taxes/government is, at least the voters are theoretically in the driver's seat, and get to at least indirectly define public good through elected representatives. With philanthropy, we're simply letting a single wealthy demographic decide "this is public good, trust me bro", and the public can't vote out rich people if they disagree.
But that's not true. The people and the democratically-elected government are the ones that Define what qualifies as a charity.
We have said through our Democratic process that these are good things.
https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/charitable-organiz...
We have said through our Democratic process that these are good things.
https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/charitable-organiz...
That's an impediment, yes, but it's not a barrier. There's nothing preventing billionaires from putting their money into causes which are not charitable. There's only a disincentive in the form of lowered efficiency.
Sure, but now you are arguing that the rich shouldn't be able to spend money as they choose, and not against deductible philanthropy.
That is a different beast entirely.
That is a different beast entirely.
You could make the same argument for tax loopholes, in fact they may actually just be the same thing in many cases.
How do you define loophole. Is is the code that explicitly gives a tax credit for children and dependence a tax loophole?
I don't think that you can make a coherent argument that a law operating as intended is considered a loophole.
I don't think that you can make a coherent argument that a law operating as intended is considered a loophole.
> what's wrong with funding homeless shelters or schools?
...that such organization replace the government in doing such services and they obviously run without democratic oversight
> If I decide to volunteer at a soup kitchen, am I also "doing government type stuff without democratic oversight"?
Do you have the power to control how millions are spent? To direct thousands of employees?
No - then it's the opposite of undemocratic. It's actually very good for society.
...that such organization replace the government in doing such services and they obviously run without democratic oversight
> If I decide to volunteer at a soup kitchen, am I also "doing government type stuff without democratic oversight"?
Do you have the power to control how millions are spent? To direct thousands of employees?
No - then it's the opposite of undemocratic. It's actually very good for society.
Interesting you mention those two topics:
Erik Prince: founder of Blackwater, private mercenary army.
Betsy Devos: former education secretary and champion of charter schools
Both children of Edgar and Elsa Prince, Erik runs their charity:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_Foundation
Erik Prince: founder of Blackwater, private mercenary army.
Betsy Devos: former education secretary and champion of charter schools
Both children of Edgar and Elsa Prince, Erik runs their charity:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_Foundation
I think you absolutely need a few billionaires to undemocratically shake things up on their own once in a while. Push forward a new vision on rockets, transportation, satellite communication, etc. Government organizations can be too prone to stagnate or languish in design by committee otherwise, see NASA not doing much new in a long time and any city taking forever to get through its own red tape to build anything.
There's a LOT of money to be made telling poor people that rich people are good. Given how much we have collectively been paid to find a good argument for enriching the rich, I don't find any of the arguments to be anywhere close to commensurately convincing, do you?
No, but it doesn't have to be convincing if you're a kid and all your stories are about the daughters of authoritarian warlords aka princesses, or genetically superior Ubermensch aka Superheros.
[deleted](1)
The fundamental problem with democracy is, to not put too fine a point on it, that most people are idiots who really have no business having a say in how a city should be run, let alone a continental scale empire. You may see that as an "attack," but it's an observable pattern that has held everywhere and always in human history. Even the provably fair ancient Athenian method of sortition produced catastrophically inept governments. Meanwhile modern "democracy" is a propagandic plutarchy that observably prioritizes the interests of the plutocrats so highly above those of the general population that the latter have, effectively, no say whatsoever.
>The fundamental problem with democracy is, to not put too fine a point on it, that most people are idiots who really have no business having a say in how a city should be run, let alone a continental scale empire.
>Meanwhile modern "democracy" is a propagandic plutarchy that observably prioritizes the interests of the plutocrats so highly above those of the general population that the latter have, effectively, no say whatsoever.
The former is a consequence of the latter. At least in modern times. Also don't forget that our notional foundations for democracy are rooted in a slave-society. I don't know how that's 'fair' unless you disregard the slaves.
And of course most people have no business in running a government: most people have no experience governing! Most people are subjects in mini-dictatorships (employees of employers).
The former is a consequence of the latter. At least in modern times. Also don't forget that our notional foundations for democracy are rooted in a slave-society. I don't know how that's 'fair' unless you disregard the slaves.
And of course most people have no business in running a government: most people have no experience governing! Most people are subjects in mini-dictatorships (employees of employers).
I’m not sure how the title got changed. But “Much philanthropy is a routinized exchange between salaried bureaucrats” is the caption on the header image not the actual title.
I would imagine that Dang changed it because of the tendency of articles with baiting questions for headlines tend to result in people skipping reading over the article and going right to answering the baiting question.
[deleted]
In some cases yes. When we dump free cloths and food in countries destroying local economies the good it does is a net negative creating dependency on donations and limiting local development. Why buy from local farms or cloth manufactures when it’s free.
If your company matches donations, take them up on that. That means for $1 pre-tax (~$0.60 out of your pocket) you can give $2.00 to an organization that could use the money. That’s almost 3.5x force multiplication.
Also I promise it will feel good, and if you choose a local organization that doesn’t have mega donors (not that the big ones are all bad) they will truly notice your help.