221–230 of 265 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> A government-funded institution has no one with a stake in its long-term success. Of course it has: pissed-off voters . Mismanaged government-funded institutions such as DMVs or social security systems are a regular troublemaker for politicians.
Is this feedback process the explanation for why those previously underperforming and frequently complained about government departments have now been fixed?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> There are lots of examples of government programs providing the basic needs of the poor at scale. I'm not sure what you're comparing here. Are you saying governments are more efficient because they are bigger? Are you saying they are more efficient because they've filled a need more completely? The first is non-sense and the second is more a function of size and power than efficiency. Efficiency is about benefit pe…
People love to say governments are inefficient, but I always find that an interesting claim. It invariably relies on comparing government to much smaller scale organizations (such as charity), which obviously isn't comparable. That is, I can be 100% efficient with my donation to charity by just...giving $20 to a homeless person. Oh look, 100% of my donation went to someone in need. A charity can be 90% efficient by c…
Unlike the government, no one's forcing people to shop at walmart, and if they were loosing efficiency (charging higher due to Admin costs) people are more than welcome to move to any alternative that suits them best
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?
Yes.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
People love to say governments are inefficient, but I always find that an interesting claim. It invariably relies on comparing government to much smaller scale organizations (such as charity), which obviously isn't comparable. That is, I can be 100% efficient with my donation to charity by just...giving $20 to a homeless person. Oh look, 100% of my donation went to someone in need. A charity can be 90% efficient by c…
Walmart still have a lot of (combined) efficiencies otherwise, people would jusy shop at the local grocer if that was cheaper :) Unlike the government, no one's forcing people to shop at walmart, and if they were loosing efficiency (charging higher due to Admin costs) people are more than welcome to move to any alternative that suits them best
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The number of people that actively donate to the government is quite small while the number that advocate for higher tax rate on others is quite High. So? It's reasonable to advocate higher taxes for all while not harming oneself for much more limited public benefit in the meantime. This often gets trotted out as a "gotcha", but it's not.
First, I don't understand the logic of more taxes are good, but refusing to donate until others do it too. It seems that the harm is the same either way, and the benefit/$ is the same either way too. (e.g. I can save a life with a dollar donation today, but wont do it until you agree to do it too so we can save 2 lives with 2 dollars) In my mind, either you don't actually want to pay, or you don't actually think your…
If taxes go up, I receive X harm (lost dollars) and X + [huge number] of dollars go to the government.
If I give X dollars to the government, I receive exactly the same harm, but the benefit to the government is just X.
Identical harm to me either way, but one situation provides far more funding.
Further, voluntary contributions in a competitive society disadvantage the donor vs. everyone who chooses not to donate. Taxes (assuming fair application) remove this factor.
> Second, I almost never see advocacy for higher taxes for all (including themselves). IMHO it is nearly always a call for higher taxes for some sub-group (usually others), and usually applied in a progressive manner.
Progressive taxes are applied to all equally (accounting tricks and such aside—the intention is equal application).
My first dollar of reported income is taxed the same rate as anyone else's from the same sort of source.
So's my millionth dollar—I just don't happen to have that many dollars of annual income, so there's nothing to tax at that rate. Same as how a person with no income at all doesn't pay tax on that first dollar, since they don't have it to begin with.
Also, there are quite a few rich folks around who've consistently advocated for higher taxes on the rich. Buffett's well-known for that stance, but is far from the only one.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Please be careful using these services. They show you high level data & many times do more harm than good due to misinterpretations. Working with many non-profits, they're very careful to keep expenses below a certain percentage of their donations. Otherwise sites likes these cause them to lose donations. Unfortunately this results in low salaries for employees which means the employees gain skills but can't afford t…
This seems like bad advice. Local non profits are largely incapable of having the impact international ones do. The local YMCA will not even come close to the impact per dollar that global health non profits have. Yes, it can be hard to get to know the international non-profits, but there are plenty of services that provide meta analysis on non profit impact. Just looking at the top of givewell you can see that lives…
I think one ends up down a deep rabbit hole comparing different non-profits. In the end I think you need to find a mission you care about & a group that you believe does it well. I think the most important thing is that you are invested in the non-profit.
A local YMCA can provide very cheap after school child care & activities that keep kids safe, out of trouble, maybe a small meal & allows their parents to work. This can end up having very huge benefits directly & indirectly in the community.
GiveWell shows a lot of cost effective ways to distribute things like medicine & safety items. Plenty of awesome non-profits there.
I work with some small non-profits that pick & fund specific research at universities on childhood cancer.
I'm not sure how you compare different non-profits like that. Especially if you want to see the impact they have over N years, how that impact is spread or if some other larger issue needs to be addressed that's making a non-profits work pointless. GiveWell itself says it doesn't try to be a charity evaluator. They try to find a small number of really good donation opportunities for people.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> There are lots of examples of government programs providing the basic needs of the poor at scale. I'm not sure what you're comparing here. Are you saying governments are more efficient because they are bigger? Are you saying they are more efficient because they've filled a need more completely? The first is non-sense and the second is more a function of size and power than efficiency. Efficiency is about benefit pe…
People love to say governments are inefficient, but I always find that an interesting claim. It invariably relies on comparing government to much smaller scale organizations (such as charity), which obviously isn't comparable. That is, I can be 100% efficient with my donation to charity by just...giving $20 to a homeless person. Oh look, 100% of my donation went to someone in need. A charity can be 90% efficient by c…
All of this after leading with seeming disagreement. I'm a little lost.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
People love to say governments are inefficient, but I always find that an interesting claim. It invariably relies on comparing government to much smaller scale organizations (such as charity), which obviously isn't comparable. That is, I can be 100% efficient with my donation to charity by just...giving $20 to a homeless person. Oh look, 100% of my donation went to someone in need. A charity can be 90% efficient by c…
Your argument is rather confusing. You say they aren't comparable, then point out a plethora of comparisons. You then finish by demonstrating some of the reasons governments are inefficient. All of this after leading with seeming disagreement. I'm a little lost.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
First, I don't understand the logic of more taxes are good, but refusing to donate until others do it too. It seems that the harm is the same either way, and the benefit/$ is the same either way too. (e.g. I can save a life with a dollar donation today, but wont do it until you agree to do it too so we can save 2 lives with 2 dollars) In my mind, either you don't actually want to pay, or you don't actually think your…
> First, I don't understand the logic of more taxes are good, but refusing to donate until others do it too. It seems that the harm is the same either way, and the benefit/$ is the same either way too. If taxes go up, I receive X harm (lost dollars) and X + [huge number] of dollars go to the government. If I give X dollars to the government, I receive exactly the same harm, but the benefit to the government is just X…
Im genuinely interested in understanding your first position because I still don't get it.
I would understand advocating for a universal tax increase + huge benefit while donating in the mean time, just not why it isn't worth it to you today.
If you think (X harm)(number of taxpayers) to save (Y lives)(number of taxpayers) is worth it, shouldn't that hold just as true for your personal case of X(1) and Y(1)?
I get that advocating that it would be better if everyone were to do it, just not that it is not worth it individually as well.
The harm you suffer is the same either way, and the benefit you provide to society is the same.
Is there more to it than the competitive disadvantage? Is the competitive disadvantage so great that is not worth giving any any amount to a Noble cause, even $1?
Re 2)....
>Progressive taxes are applied to all equally (accounting tricks and such aside—the intention is equal application).
This is a separate question which I doubt we will be able to see eye to eye on.
It reminds me of the famous Anatole France quote: “The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread.”
A law can be applied universally, but still target specific individuals. A law taxing the top 1% can be applied universally but obviously only harms the 1% and not the 99%.
That is not to say that a tax on the 1% isn't a bad idea, but I do feel it is disingenuous for the 99% to say that we too are equally subject to the law, as if they are equally harmed.
A more honest description would be "we want to harm the 1%, because we think that the majority would stand to benefit"
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…
I worked for several different charities for a few years. Supposedly "good ones", a couple of big names. After what I have seen I don't think I'd ever donate to a charity. The CEO's pay is almost the least concern, everything runs according to the whims of people who wouldn't last 5 minutes in a for-profit business. The people donating just want to feel good about themselves or get some positive press for donating. T…
And here’s the weird philanthropic angle: as an NGO head you only get access to the government cash spigot if you can show “co-finance”, typically private, which will 3x a philanthropist’s funding and give them huge power in resource allocation.