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

261–270 of 301 posts

Re: Donate Unrestricted

#261

Post by cortesoft »

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.

This is ridiculous. How would this even work in practice?

Say I am a charity who feeds the homeless. You like that, so you I’ve me a $1 million dollar interest free loan to further my cause, but say you can demand repayment if we strayed from our mission.

Ok... so what is the charity going to do with the money? They are going to spend it on stuff.. so they spend the million dollars either on things that are good for the charity mission or not, but either way they are spending the money.

If afterward you say “that isn’t right, I demand you pay back the loan!”.... how are you going to collect? They already spent the money. The loan wasn’t backed by anything you can take back. You could take the charity over, I guess, but it will be a name with no assets.

Even if a charity had assets to take, how do we know the DONOR won’t ‘stray from their mission’ and suddenly demand repayment years later after the money is spent? Who decides if the charity has strayed from their mission and the money is eligible to be taken back? What if the donor suddenly needs money and claims the charity drifted off mission even though they didn’t?

This is one of those ideas that sounds good unless you think about it.

Re: Donate Unrestricted

#262

Post by cortesoft »

notsureaboutpg wrote: post #118
ralmidani wrote: post #94

Over the years my opinion of non-profits has become less, shall we say, “charitable”; society has a tendency to glorify non-profits because they “don’t have shareholders” but, in reality, a lot of non-profits give peanuts to those at the bottom (with some even working for free) while executives get far more than a living salary. And whether you’re an educational institution, an insurance provider, or an NGO, being an…

There's a huge fallacy where people believe that non-profits are supposed to be inherently more equitable and nicer than for-profit companies. And people who believe this fallacy get upset by executive pay at non-profits and turn to sites like Charity Navigator to find charities where 99 cents of their dollar goes to charity. But the fact of the matter is that paying salaries to people who bring in more money than th…

While I get this argument, it does leave out some details that might not make the value calculation as cut and dry. One, sure, your particular charity might be able to spend more on actual charity by increasing marketing, but what is the opportunity cost? If there is a person who donates $100 after you spend $60 convincing them to donate to you, it might seem like that is a good use of the $60... you have $40 extra!

As a business, that calculation is certainly correct. But as a charity, you have to think about what the donor would have done otherwise... maybe your $60 in marketing actually just caused the person to switch their $100 donation from some other charity to yours. Now instead of charity B getting $100, charity A only gets $40 after expenses.

Even worse, you can start an arms race. Now charity B has to spend marketing money to try to win back the donor who switched their donation to charity A, and now they spend $70 to get them to switch back (still worth it from charity B’s perspective, $30 in gain)... now we have two charities spending $130 for $100 in donations.

There is always an opportunity cost.

Re: Donate Unrestricted

#263

Post by selfishgene »

Would nudging tax rates a little higher on the highest income brackets and Congress taking steps to close the many tax loopholes that companies exploit to avoid paying their fair share of corporate taxes in this country not also help fix this vexing problem?

As usual, the question boils down to whether or not you prefer monopolists like Bill Gates who "beat the charges" back in 2002 or polluters like the Koch brothers deciding what "good work" gets done ... or the brilliant intellectuals that we elect to Congress like this beauty:

https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/aoc-republicans-li...

Tough choices for sure.

Re: Donate Unrestricted

#264

Post by websites2323 »

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 state doesn’t discourage it, they promote it. That’s the problem. Gambling is entertainment for people who don’t understand statistics. It’s a tax on the poor.

Re: Donate Unrestricted

#265

Post by breck »

boucher wrote: post #259
breck wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

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

You should never let the risk of losing your organization stop you from doing the right thing.

Re: Donate Unrestricted

#266

Post by ahepp »

pavlov wrote: post #19
jonhohle wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At least in AZ, we have several tax credits that allow you to donate to organizations in certain categories. Unfortunately it’s a fixed dollar amount and not a percentage of liability. I agree, it would be nice to control where more tax money was directed.

Elections are how you control where your tax money goes. Micro-earmarks by voters would create enormous imbalances. Police get so much money for equipment that they can’t spend it all, while public defenders go unfunded.

>Police get so much money for equipment that they can’t spend it all, while public defenders go unfunded.

Isn't that true today?

Re: Donate Unrestricted

#267

Post by Viliam1234 »

theamk wrote: post #126
Viliam1234 wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you expect that someone just wants to steal your money (and I am not saying such expectation is always wrong), perhaps you just shouldn't give them any. On the other hand, if you trust that someone wants to do a good thing, they probably have more information about the topic than you do, so you should give them freedom to actually act on that information. Like, maybe you think "X is way more important than Y", but…

Now all cases like this, many nonprofits have multiple independent projects Like Mozilla foundation, which has a number of separate "initiatives" Or Wikimedia, which partially works on Wikipedia.org website, but also works on a number of projects not directly related to the main website.

Of course, if the charity itself encourages you to choose, then it's perfectly okay.

Re: Donate Unrestricted

#268

Post by scrose »

tgsovlerkhgsel wrote: post #121
Viliam1234 wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you expect that someone just wants to steal your money (and I am not saying such expectation is always wrong), perhaps you just shouldn't give them any. On the other hand, if you trust that someone wants to do a good thing, they probably have more information about the topic than you do, so you should give them freedom to actually act on that information. Like, maybe you think "X is way more important than Y", but…

> If you expect that someone just wants to steal your money (and I am not saying such expectation is always wrong), perhaps you just shouldn't give them any. This is indeed the approach I've been taking with some climate change charities: most of them have an "advocacy" component, and while I'd like to support effective emissions reduction projects, I'm not willing to contribute to the preaching for individual asceti…

‘Advocacy’ is very broad. I hope you’re not discounting donating to places because you think it can only mean one thing!

Re: Donate Unrestricted

#269

Post by rsj_hn »

cortesoft wrote: post #257
bradleyjg wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

In other countries, things not tied directly to a university's educational mission are still available, but as local community organizations. There are drama clubs, sports clubs, but available to the entire community, not just college students.

There is no reason why the state should spend its educational subsidies on funding auxillary recreational activities solely for the benefit of university students when a good GPA is not necessary to recreate, nor do university students have a greater need of recreation than anyone else.

Re: Donate Unrestricted

#270

Post by lmm »

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #32
temp8964 wrote: post #28

The article mentioned the Gates foundation which has terrible records in education initiatives: - The big failure in small schools initiative: https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2010/09/th... - The big failure in teacher evaluation initiative: https://www.businessinsider.com/bill-melinda-gates-foundatio... - The big failure in Common Core initiative: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/answer-sheet/wp/…

Interestingly, its still their money, and still their choice where to use it.

Money that you've earned honestly and paid your fair share of taxes on is yours free and clear. Profits from an illegal monopoly that you've avoided tax on via a 503c not so much.
Post reply on HN