Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Donate Unrestricted

paulgraham.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

251–260 of 301 posts

Re: Donate Unrestricted

#251

Post by cambalache »

matheusmoreira wrote: post #212
samspenc wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not so sure since as others have pointed out, the non-profit would have to repay the loan. Plus a lot of non-profits' "business models" aren't tailored around repaying donations. Think of some of the performing arts, dance and music programs in some of the largest cities that are structured as non-profits and charge $20 in ticket fees. If they lost their donors, they would have to charge $100 to $200 in ticket fees j…

> the non-profit would have to repay the loan Only if they ever strayed from their mission. That ought to put a limit to how much corruption they think they can get away with.

That means on their most difficult time? You are not thinking this well at all. Maybe the person corrupt was just one member who ran away, maybe the "corruption" was simply an unwise investment, maybe they were scammed by a third part, maybe they dont agree with you on the nature of the investment(say raising the minimum wage of their employees to 15 USD/h).

Re: Donate Unrestricted

#252

Post by [deleted] »

temuze wrote: post #247

Also important: donate regularly. Ad-hoc donations make it difficult for a nonprofit to plan their budget. It forces them to spend a lot of that money to solicit more donations. My friend made a tool to donate anonymously and regularly to non-profits: https://sublimefund.org/ Less spam, better for the non-profits. It's a good combination.

[deleted]

Re: Donate Unrestricted

#253

Post by yboris »

sneak wrote: post #31

This highlights an issue that the article doesn't touch: how to choose trustworthy donation targets? It implies you should not to trust places with your money if you don't trust them to allocate it, which is correct, but how to know who to trust? I generally stick near-exclusively to GiveWell as a result. https://www.givewell.org/ Each year they use a small fixed percentage of donations to research the most human ben…

I second this. I've been giving to GiveWell's top-recommended charities for about 10 years now (10% of my income - see Giving What We Can).

Please give your money to charities that are cost-effective - ones that have research-proven ways of helping others (and thus help the most per dollar given). Rather than doing your own research, it's worth trusting GiveWell (with their 10+ years of focus on finding the most cost-effective charities).

Re: Donate Unrestricted

#254

Post by yboris »

bradleyjg wrote: post #25

As a corollary if you feel like you want to make a restricted donation to a particular organization, don’t donate to that organization. Find one that’s better aligned with your values.

Better yet, re-align your values towards "help as many individuals as much as possible with the limited funds available". It's often the case that there are more cost-effective ways of helping people.

Preventing people from getting malaria costs very little - so much cheaper than trying to cure a single individual from cancer (for example). Suffering is suffering, and it shouldn't matter whether it happens in your country or another. Help as many as you can by being cost-effective (see GiveWell for research).

Re: Donate Unrestricted

#255

Post by webmaven »

colinmhayes wrote: post #250
muti wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The lottery is effectively a regressive tax. I would prefer increasing taxes in a progressive or at least proportional scheme.

The lottery is a choice. No one is forcing anyone to play. People are going to gamble though, so the state might as well take a cut as a way to discourage it.

> The lottery is a choice. No one is forcing anyone to play.

That effectively makes it a tax on the innumerate.

People are going to gamble though, so the state might as well take a cut as a way to discourage it.

It's fairly well established that rather than discouraging gambling, the result of government endorsement and taxation is a net increase in gambling.

I think I've also seen some analysis that after about a decade, the increase in gambling behavior is also correlated with less taxable income from citizens, higher consumption of alcohol, etc., which amplifies the regressive effects.

Re: Donate Unrestricted

#256

Post by yboris »

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #41

I like to donate when I know a person involved. I find it hard to trust an organization or title. I donate cash to the local food bank, which is run by neighbors. I donate to my son's college student organization, run by folks he knows. I donate to a guy I see on the street frequently, who has been camping since he became homeless in 1985.

It's wonderful that you're already donating non-trivial amounts. Would you have more trust if an independent charity evaluator spent over a decade vetting charities - picking only ones transparent enough that can be scrutinized, and then choosing only the most cost-effective?

See GiveWell for their research. When giving internationally, you can multiply the positive impact a thousand-fold (because it's much more expensive to help anyone in the richest country in the world).

Re: Donate Unrestricted

#257

Post by cortesoft »

bradleyjg wrote: post #179
xirbeosbwo1234 wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem with that is, in part, that they ignored the spirit of the donation, but also that the proper amount for a university to spend on a scoreboard is twelve dollars and thirty-seven cents. OK, that's a bit unrealistic. I could build them one for a few hundred, though, and they could pay a student $50 to flip over the numbers during the game.

The proper amount to spend is zero. There’s no reason for universities to be running minor league football teams with unpaid labor. On the contrary that’s the exact opposite of “charitable”.

So there should be no sports at all at schools? What about other extra curricular activities? No band, no drama club, nothing but academics?

I get not wanting to have a minor league football team with unpaid labor, but even rec league basketball needs a scoreboard.

Re: Donate Unrestricted

#258

Post by cortesoft »

tgsovlerkhgsel wrote: post #104
rossdavidh wrote: post #59

I worked in Accounting (the dept that did it, not the one that taught it) IT at a major public university for several years. Something like half of the software complexity was in keeping track of each dollar's origin, and making sure that it was spent on only what the source approved it to be spent on. Whether the source was the federal government, the state, corporate donors, or wealthy individuals, they all had str…

> The most surprising thing to me was how small a percentage of the budget was under the control of the president of the university; it was only a tiny amount. Virtually all of the money was controlled by the source, not by the administration. I consider that good news, actually, because it makes restricted donations meaningful. I always assumed that restricted donations were pointless, because if I donated $x of res…

This is true, unless there isn’t $x of unrestricted budget to move around.

Re: Donate Unrestricted

#259

Post by boucher »

breck wrote: post #223
anthony88 wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not aware that Wikimedia is producing public domain output. Wikipedia and wiktionary for example are under CC BY-SA 3.0 license which is kind of '(L)GPL'.

Ah you're right. That's a mistake. They should fix that.

It's probably the only thing protecting Wikipedia's existence.

Re: Donate Unrestricted

#260

Post by ptest1 »

rossdavidh wrote: post #59

I worked in Accounting (the dept that did it, not the one that taught it) IT at a major public university for several years. Something like half of the software complexity was in keeping track of each dollar's origin, and making sure that it was spent on only what the source approved it to be spent on. Whether the source was the federal government, the state, corporate donors, or wealthy individuals, they all had str…

Not only that, but many nonprofits must force their employees and even volunteers to use annoying time tracking software!
Post reply on HN