That's true, regarding the limits being for short-term consumer protection. Could we accomplish this regulatory oversight through other means than government blanket rules, however? Unbiased charity rating systems could come into play here.
I actually found this article while browsing around as myself and some colleagues would like to create a company which will hopefully inspire more charitable donations, larger donations, etc., which would have a positive impact.. however the idea of exerting startup-level effort, hours and dedication for a very limited economic benefit seems really unappealing compared to other options. Is it morally acceptable to be paid more in a charity-focused company, as long as you and the company hold that value? Charities haven't seen any revolutionary changes, and the financial limitations leave only a very small altruistic proportion of people who are willing to work and make changes in the sector.
That's the main idea -- is the hypocritical perception warranted, and would we create more revolutionary charities and easier donation systems and things of that sort if it were eliminated, or given less attention? Would the tradeoff be worth it to attract more SV-level talent?
I actually found this article while browsing around as myself and some colleagues would like to create a company which will hopefully inspire more charitable donations, larger donations, etc., which would have a positive impact.. however the idea of exerting startup-level effort, hours and dedication for a very limited economic benefit seems really unappealing compared to other options. Is it morally acceptable to be paid more in a charity-focused company, as long as you and the company hold that value? Charities haven't seen any revolutionary changes, and the financial limitations leave only a very small altruistic proportion of people who are willing to work and make changes in the sector.