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

121–130 of 265 posts

Re: Much philanthropy is a routinized exchange between salaried bureaucrats

#121

Post by sokoloff »

cycomanic wrote: post #63
lmm wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That's actually a very good point. Tax deductions in contrast to direct payments typically favor high income individuals over poorer people. At the same time for the government to get the greatest impact of your policy, which typically means influencing the behavior of the maximum amount of people. Again this would point to targeting the poor&middle class.

One of the largest* tax deductions comes from the paying of people’s wages for jobs. That’s a tax deduction where the economic benefit of the overall transaction goes much more to the wage recipient than to the entity taking the deduction.

It seems unreasonable for employers to not be able to deduct that amount and for the government to somehow pay them a fraction of what it costs to employ people.

* - I suspect it’s the largest overall, but didn’t have time to do the research to satisfy myself that it’s the single largest, but it’s clearly one of the largest.

Re: Much philanthropy is a routinized exchange between salaried bureaucrats

#122

Post by saturnaga »

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…

The real problem comes though when you actually do research to try to find a good charity to give to.

Tax is a side show here. The issue I found is when trying to find a good charity an overwhelming amount of the money is spent on "fund raising" and exactly what this article is talking about. I quit giving to charity besides the local food bank. Literally everything else seemed like a scam. The more the name of the charity pulls on the heart strings the better chance it is a scam too.

Re: Much philanthropy is a routinized exchange between salaried bureaucrats

#123

Post by rmbyrro »

krzysiek wrote: post #78

> In the contemporary world, philanthropy is distinctively American. We give about four hundred and seventy billion dollars a year—more if you count donations of time, physical labor, and material. America’s total is ahead of any other country’s, even as a percentage of G.D.P. Well, this is just not true. Americans give 2.1% of GDP to charity [1] while the whole world gives just under 3% [2]. Also when you take a loo…

Maybe a good relativistic metric would be donations per capita vs. GDP per capita.

Considering purchasing power parity GDP would be even better.

Re: Much philanthropy is a routinized exchange between salaried bureaucrats

#124

Post by ClumsyPilot »

rhacker wrote: post #83
krageon wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And what organisations, pray tell, actually need the money and would be visible to a normal human being in a country that isn't shattered by war? Most of the large charities have disgustingly paid CEO's and I can't be the only one that gets a sour taste in their mouth when I give an amount of money to them and realise this CEO receives 100k-1m in compensation while actual human beings starve in the streets or freeze…

It's not even the CEOs. Most non-profits are just staffed by busy-bodied millennials working up a bunch of corporate memphis themed junk content. It actually is incredible how many people work jobs at a non-profit that think they are the stars of "The Bold Type" (I know that show is about a magazine). Doing nothing important all day except talking to their friends and posting it on social media - expecting that THAT…

> Doing nothing important all day except talking to their friends and posting it on social media - expecting that THAT was work. Also it's late and I'm salty.

Have you ever seen a corporate marketing department?

Re: Much philanthropy is a routinized exchange between salaried bureaucrats

#125

Post by ClumsyPilot »

beefield wrote: post #85

Okay, I think I have some weird blind spot here. I have really hard time understanding the reasoning behind philanthropy being a societal good that should be subsidized by taxpayers. Let's take econ 101 and revealed preferences. It is obvious that if you give 100 bucks to a charity you get utility worth more than that 100 bucks. Otherwise you would not do that . And there is zero difference on the mechanics there if…

> lets take econ 101.. from the point of view of the donor we can think charity nothing more, nothing less than entertainment

Sounds like you failed econ 101.

If you only take the viewpoit of a sociopath, you will miss some crucial detail, like empathy, which is the reason people donate.

I donate because want to stave off ecosystem collapse, but you come across as the kind of person that would rather invest 2 billion in personal bunkers than 1 billion in ecosystem restoration, because the former is 'value' and the latter is 'entertainment'

Re: Much philanthropy is a routinized exchange between salaried bureaucrats

#126

Post by ClumsyPilot »

exdsq wrote: post #120
_dain_ wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't do it for a good feeling, you do it so they can feed their family.

It’s okay if altruism is inherently selfish and for a warm fuzzy feeling or social media points as long as the altruism takes place

This comes across as divorced from reality - this is not why most people donate

Re: Much philanthropy is a routinized exchange between salaried bureaucrats

#128

Post by rtpg »

kortilla wrote: post #75
krageon wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And what organisations, pray tell, actually need the money and would be visible to a normal human being in a country that isn't shattered by war? Most of the large charities have disgustingly paid CEO's and I can't be the only one that gets a sour taste in their mouth when I give an amount of money to them and realise this CEO receives 100k-1m in compensation while actual human beings starve in the streets or freeze…

You should rethink this stance. Do you want competent people running the organization or the cheapest possible? A charity that just passes money straight through by sending envelopes full of cash to a war torn country is much worse than one that spends a ton of money on analyzing first what the most effective way to help is.

Loads of people take below market salaries. Plenty of CEOs are merely paid low six digits instead of 300k+!

Is it unreasonable for a charity CEO to merely be paid a bit closer to the median for their kind of work?

Re: Much philanthropy is a routinized exchange between salaried bureaucrats

#129

Post by bsenftner »

saturnaga wrote: post #122
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…

The real problem comes though when you actually do research to try to find a good charity to give to. Tax is a side show here. The issue I found is when trying to find a good charity an overwhelming amount of the money is spent on "fund raising" and exactly what this article is talking about. I quit giving to charity besides the local food bank. Literally everything else seemed like a scam. The more the name of the c…

Me too. I researched, part of a graduate school assignment: detailed following of the money, and beyond direct gifts to local food banks or directly to people in need I honor no organized charity. The well was poisoned decades ago, and now charities are simply not charities.

Re: Much philanthropy is a routinized exchange between salaried bureaucrats

#130

Post by suture »

krzysiek wrote: post #113
croon wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What would be more interesting would be comparing it after including welfare/public education/healthcare/poverty rates etc. Best case scenario would be where no charity is needed, am I wrong?

Honestly I believe that the other way around would be way better. There is a lot of inefficiencies in the way governments work, plus they operate like monopolies. On the other hand there is competition between nonprofits, plus they are often multinational. I find it interesting that some of the most efficient government organizations (like World Food Programme) actually operate as charities (in the sense that everyon…

I think you are very much wrong when talking about efficiencies. There are no examples in the history of the world of charity sufficiently providing for the needs of the poor at a national scale. There are lots of examples of government programs providing the basic needs of the poor at scale.
Post reply on HN