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

Much philanthropy is a routinized exchange between salaried bureaucrats

newyorker.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 265 posts

Re: Much philanthropy is a routinized exchange between salaried bureaucrats

#41

Post by jagtesh »

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.

Re: Much philanthropy is a routinized exchange between salaried bureaucrats

#42

Post by christkv »

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.

Re: Much philanthropy is a routinized exchange between salaried bureaucrats

#43

Post by analog31 »

s1artibartfast wrote: post #4
lmm wrote: post #3

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.

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…

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?

Re: Much philanthropy is a routinized exchange between salaried bureaucrats

#44

Post by lmm »

gruez wrote: post #19
lmm wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

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.

Re: Much philanthropy is a routinized exchange between salaried bureaucrats

#45

Post by lmm »

winstonewert wrote: post #27
lmm wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 yo…

> 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.

Re: Much philanthropy is a routinized exchange between salaried bureaucrats

#46

Post by lmm »

gruez wrote: post #18
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…

>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…

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.

Re: Much philanthropy is a routinized exchange between salaried bureaucrats

#47

Post by lmm »

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.

> 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.

Re: Much philanthropy is a routinized exchange between salaried bureaucrats

#48

Post by lmm »

cherrycherry98 wrote: post #25
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 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…

> 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.

Re: Much philanthropy is a routinized exchange between salaried bureaucrats

#49

Post by diordiderot »

uvnq wrote: post #35
akudha wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 r…

What makes you think the majority supports this?

Abortion

https://www.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/ft_20...

Maternity

https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2017/03/23/america...

Wage

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/04/22/most-americ...

Re: Much philanthropy is a routinized exchange between salaried bureaucrats

#50

Post by anamax »

Spooky23 wrote: post #12
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…

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 go…

> I get to pay even higher taxes because my locality actually provides things like sound education.

Which your area benefits from....

Post reply on HN