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

Re: Much philanthropy is a routinized exchange between salaried bureaucrats

#201

Post by vmception » Tue, May 24, 2022, 4:33 PM UTC

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.

donations aren’t limited, they are capped via a %

the salt is called via a $

different political things, but the salt cap was a punitive thing purely for you to have resentment about where you live, it’s interesting that instead you got resentment for non profits

republicans want you to have resentment at high tax states run by democrats, so that you consider regime change in that state

Re: Much philanthropy is a routinized exchange between salaried bureaucrats

#202

Post by Spooky23 » Tue, May 24, 2022, 4:33 PM UTC

gwbrooks wrote: post #73

Spooky23 wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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... (snip) Wouldn't the most effective solution be to reduce the number of things the federal government does? Rich blue states make their choices and keep more of their revenue within state boundaries and residents of red states get to decide if they like their…

I’d prefer to live in a modern society where we get to share the immense wealth of our nation in a way that promotes the general welfare.

I’ve run into so many people in my time who’ve had to suffer in various ways because of senseless circumstances. One person lost their home due to a medical condition and the associated costs. Had it happened 6 months before his employee health plan changed, his family’s life would have taken a dramatically different path.

Re: Much philanthropy is a routinized exchange between salaried bureaucrats

#203

Post by [deleted] » Tue, May 24, 2022, 4:33 PM UTC

ZeroGravitas wrote: post #131

Another only mildly disguised attack on democracy. > If you’re used to thinking that our democratic system is in bad shape, that can sound jarring. But she’s working in the tradition of what philosophers call “ideal theory”; the aim is to sketch out what a good system would be, assuming that everyone fully complied with its rules. I'm used to thinking that democracy is in poor shape because rich and powerful people p…

[deleted]

Re: Much philanthropy is a routinized exchange between salaried bureaucrats

#204

Post by [deleted] » Tue, May 24, 2022, 4:36 PM UTC

[deleted] wrote: post #203

ZeroGravitas wrote: post #131

Another only mildly disguised attack on democracy. > If you’re used to thinking that our democratic system is in bad shape, that can sound jarring. But she’s working in the tradition of what philosophers call “ideal theory”; the aim is to sketch out what a good system would be, assuming that everyone fully complied with its rules. I'm used to thinking that democracy is in poor shape because rich and powerful people p…

[deleted]

[deleted]

Re: Much philanthropy is a routinized exchange between salaried bureaucrats

#205

Post by vmception » Tue, May 24, 2022, 4:36 PM UTC

tbrownaw wrote: post #14

I'd rather not have all the eggs in one basket every time there's some mandatory fad going around.

you mean you’re not going to send $10 to the Red Cross after the next earthquake in a developing nation?

Re: Much philanthropy is a routinized exchange between salaried bureaucrats

#206

Post by vmception » Tue, May 24, 2022, 4:39 PM UTC

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…

Foundation is a great way to do that because you can swap the board/trustees out for other natural persons indefinitely

And the bylaws can force this too

Re: Much philanthropy is a routinized exchange between salaried bureaucrats

#207

Post by simonh » Tue, May 24, 2022, 4:40 PM UTC

bluefirebrand wrote: post #197

simonh wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem with direct democracy is that nobody implementing popularly mandated policies has a stake in successfully implementing them. There's no personal commitment. In contrast if a politician or party proposes policies and gets elected, everybody knows who is responsible for implementing those policies successfully, and the electorate can and will hold them accountable for it. In an ideal direct democracy where…

> the electorate can and will hold them accountable for it In theory. In practice is this what we're actually seeing? In Canada at least, I don't think political parties are being held accountable for the promises they make during election campaigns. There is a huge tendency to promise the moon and deliver the status quo.

In practice the electorate has to make a pragmatic selection between the choices available to them. Once party leadership and policies emerge, those are your choices, neither may be ideal but that's what you've got. You might very well suspect the politician you vote for won't achieve everything they want to, but maybe they'll deliver more than the other politicians. That sounds terrible, and it's not great, but at least it's realistic.

In direct democracy there's the illusion of zero compromise, you can end up with whatever wacky or amazing combination of initiatives you like, but in reality compromises still have to be made and priorities are going to conflict with each other. Somebody still need to implement all of that.

I just think it makes sense that the person (or party) doing the implementation and deciding on the compromises should be the person who made the commitment.

Re: Much philanthropy is a routinized exchange between salaried bureaucrats

#208

Post by jum1p » Tue, May 24, 2022, 4:42 PM UTC

philan trophy

english is beautiful

Re: Much philanthropy is a routinized exchange between salaried bureaucrats

#209

Post by default-kramer » Tue, May 24, 2022, 4:50 PM UTC

sokoloff wrote: post #169

Matl wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Is this feedback process the explanation for why those previously underperforming and frequently complained about government departments have now been fixed? Perhaps the constant demonizing of public services by private interests, (who btw often rely on government contracts to function), and certain politicians bought by these interests could be a contributing factor in why not? But let me hear about how private he…

I think that's a lot of the issue: many people (including myself) are in fact happy with their private healthcare and broadband service. (I have Comcast, so it's not like I've even got the "best", but I'd way rather deal with Comcast or Blue Cross than any government agency...)

Counter-anecdote: I've only had AT&T and Time Warner Cable (now "Spectrum") and I would rather deal with any government agency than either of those two. Specifically I would rate my water+sewer and electricity 5/5 stars while I would rate TWC and AT&T something close to negative infinity.

Re: Much philanthropy is a routinized exchange between salaried bureaucrats

#210

Post by QuarterReptile » Tue, May 24, 2022, 4:52 PM UTC

suture wrote: post #148

maccard wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm definitely in the pro-government-involvement camp but > There are no examples in the history of the world of charity sufficiently providing for the needs of the poor at a national scale. This is just false. Literally right now we have the case where food banks are filling in the gaps of the UK government at a national scale.

Remove UK government support for food for the poor. This includes school lunches and whatnot. Will the charities be able to fill the need? The answer is no. Charities can fill gaps but not beyond that.

This is true in the same way that US rail wouldn't be able to fill commuter demand if every ICE car disappeared. It should surprise no one that an organization accustomed to, and thus built for, one thing would fail to instantaneoulsy shift to doing a somewhat similar thing on a completely different scale.