Much philanthropy is a routinized exchange between salaried bureaucrats • Hacker News Board

Re: Much philanthropy is a routinized exchange between salaried bureaucrats

#21

Post by chii » Tue, May 24, 2022, 4:07 AM UTC

ThrowITout4321 wrote: post #17

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 cau…

> 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.

Re: Much philanthropy is a routinized exchange between salaried bureaucrats

#22

Post by pyuser583 » Tue, May 24, 2022, 4:08 AM UTC

ThrowITout4321 wrote: post #17

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 cau…

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.

Re: Much philanthropy is a routinized exchange between salaried bureaucrats

#23

Post by gruez » Tue, May 24, 2022, 4:10 AM UTC

ThrowITout4321 wrote: post #17

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 cau…

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%?

Re: Much philanthropy is a routinized exchange between salaried bureaucrats

#24

Post by wolverine876 » Tue, May 24, 2022, 4:18 AM UTC

lmm wrote: post #6

s1artibartfast wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

"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 exac…

> 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.

Re: Much philanthropy is a routinized exchange between salaried bureaucrats

#25

Post by cherrycherry98 » Tue, May 24, 2022, 4:18 AM UTC

lmm wrote: post #6

s1artibartfast wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

"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 exac…

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.

Re: Much philanthropy is a routinized exchange between salaried bureaucrats

#26

Post by wolverine876 » Tue, May 24, 2022, 4:21 AM UTC

jdminhbg wrote: post #16

lmm wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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 exac…

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.

Re: Much philanthropy is a routinized exchange between salaried bureaucrats

#27

Post by winstonewert » Tue, May 24, 2022, 4:22 AM UTC

lmm wrote: post #15

gruez wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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…

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.

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?

Re: Much philanthropy is a routinized exchange between salaried bureaucrats

#28

Post by wolverine876 » Tue, May 24, 2022, 4:24 AM UTC

ge96 wrote: post #2

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.

Re: Much philanthropy is a routinized exchange between salaried bureaucrats

#29

Post by jdminhbg » Tue, May 24, 2022, 4:25 AM UTC

wolverine876 wrote: post #26

jdminhbg wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 servi…

> 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.

Re: Much philanthropy is a routinized exchange between salaried bureaucrats

#30

Post by wolverine876 » Tue, May 24, 2022, 4:29 AM UTC

jdminhbg wrote: post #29

wolverine876 wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 servi…

> 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…

> 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.