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

51–60 of 265 posts

Re: Much philanthropy is a routinized exchange between salaried bureaucrats

#51

Post by lmm »

gruez wrote: post #23
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 wi…

> 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%?

That 99% compounds though. Sure, maybe you find someone pretty like-minded. 50 years from now, are they going to be able to find someone 50 years younger than them but just as like-minded? And their replacement 50 years on? Realistically you couldn't maintain any objective that was too far out of line with the general culture.

Re: Much philanthropy is a routinized exchange between salaried bureaucrats

#52

Post by asdff »

jagtesh wrote: post #41

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…

If you want to voluntarily engage in a 'public' philanthropy ran by the government, you can just buy a government bond.

Re: Much philanthropy is a routinized exchange between salaried bureaucrats

#53

Post by avgcorrection »

somethoughts wrote: post #33

I think a lot of people give to philanthropy just purely for recognition that philanthropy unique provides. I think it'd be an interesting experiment to celebrate the highest tax payers the same way we celebrate those in the Forbes 500 with magazine covers and the way non-profits celebrate their biggest donors with gala dinners. Celebrating tax contributions and rewarding the contributor (on an opt in basis) could be…

A Captain of Industry who pays a lot in taxes might also indirectly use public goods like roads (for their logistics). They are not some baseline citizen with one white-picket-fence house who contributes above and beyond.

> Celebrating tax contributions and rewarding the contributor (on an opt in basis) could be hugely beneficial for certain types of wealthy individuals. Often times wealthy people enjoy being on these lists as it helps their business, PR, etc. in addition to recognition.

This is irrelevant. Rich people already rule the world. If they want better PR they can just buy it.

You can worship rich people all you want, but it would be for your own pleasure and wouldn't be relevant to the billionaires or whoever it is that we're talking about.

Re: Much philanthropy is a routinized exchange between salaried bureaucrats

#54

Post by bshoemaker »

somethoughts wrote: post #33

I think a lot of people give to philanthropy just purely for recognition that philanthropy unique provides. I think it'd be an interesting experiment to celebrate the highest tax payers the same way we celebrate those in the Forbes 500 with magazine covers and the way non-profits celebrate their biggest donors with gala dinners. Celebrating tax contributions and rewarding the contributor (on an opt in basis) could be…

I have always thought this. The fundamental way this is discussed today (taxation as a punitive measure) rather than celebrating the contribution to society titans of industry make when they pay their taxes.

Re: Much philanthropy is a routinized exchange between salaried bureaucrats

#55

Post by ars »

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.

The tax break is only around 20% of the donation. Even if the donated money is not spent as perfectly as you would like, there's 5 times as much of it.

Re: Much philanthropy is a routinized exchange between salaried bureaucrats

#57

Post by inglor_cz »

avgcorrection wrote: post #53
somethoughts wrote: post #33

I think a lot of people give to philanthropy just purely for recognition that philanthropy unique provides. I think it'd be an interesting experiment to celebrate the highest tax payers the same way we celebrate those in the Forbes 500 with magazine covers and the way non-profits celebrate their biggest donors with gala dinners. Celebrating tax contributions and rewarding the contributor (on an opt in basis) could be…

A Captain of Industry who pays a lot in taxes might also indirectly use public goods like roads (for their logistics). They are not some baseline citizen with one white-picket-fence house who contributes above and beyond. > Celebrating tax contributions and rewarding the contributor (on an opt in basis) could be hugely beneficial for certain types of wealthy individuals. Often times wealthy people enjoy being on thes…

The OP was talking about the top tax payers, which is a specific subset of rich people. Maybe it is a good idea to come up with some soft incentives. Tax collection generally relies on "whip", but "sugar" isn't useless either.

Re: Much philanthropy is a routinized exchange between salaried bureaucrats

#58

Post by inglor_cz »

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…

My European experience says that even relatively small countries the size of Mississippi themselves have a fair share of folks kvetching that the richer parts subsidize the poorer parts. Few places are small or homogeneous enough not to experience that. A continent-wide country like the US can hardly escape the same.

It is even worse if there is an ethnic difference in the mix (e.g. the Flemish vs. the Walloons in Belgium).

Also, I wonder whether New York / California liberals would really welcome soldiers among them and whether the military could recruit enough people there. Amazon got kicked out from New York for being too capitalist.

It definitely seems to me that the coastal elite wants a strong military to protect their trade empire, but preferrably located far away and with someone else's kids doing the dangerous parts of the job.

Re: Much philanthropy is a routinized exchange between salaried bureaucrats

#59

Post by hutzlibu »

somethoughts wrote: post #33

I think a lot of people give to philanthropy just purely for recognition that philanthropy unique provides. I think it'd be an interesting experiment to celebrate the highest tax payers the same way we celebrate those in the Forbes 500 with magazine covers and the way non-profits celebrate their biggest donors with gala dinners. Celebrating tax contributions and rewarding the contributor (on an opt in basis) could be…

"I am purposely choosing to give up that right and instead contribute it via taxes to my country because I believe in its people to vote intelligently and the elected politicians to act in the best interests of those people."

I might sound cynic, but personally I could only held up that belief, if I never open my eyes again and never open any newspaper anymore, or turn on the tv. Usually I read sentences like this in satire articles, but I think I understand the motivation behind it. Sometimes you have to give trust first, to make something work. I am just very sceptical in this case.

Post reply on HN