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

Re: Much philanthropy is a routinized exchange between salaried bureaucrats

#31

Post by akudha » Tue, May 24, 2022, 4:35 AM UTC

chii wrote: post #21

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…

> I can setup a foundation whose goal is to fund an ugly aspect of society. and why do you get to claim such an aspect is "ugly"? If society, as a whole (or majority) decides such an aspect is ugly, then they can put a law in to outlaw it. The problem isn't at this level of non-profit orgs - the problem is at the civil participation. most people don't participate (not even vote). So those who do get more say, by rela…

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 rich patrons. A small minority with huge resources can consistently do stuff that the rest of us can only dream of.

Even if civil participation is good, a well funded foundation can twist and turn the narrative to their advantage and confuse the voters.

Re: Much philanthropy is a routinized exchange between salaried bureaucrats

#32

Post by drewcoo » Tue, May 24, 2022, 4:37 AM 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.

I agree. Especially if that basket we're relying on is oligarch philanthropy.

Re: Much philanthropy is a routinized exchange between salaried bureaucrats

#33

Post by somethoughts » Tue, May 24, 2022, 4:40 AM UTC

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 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.

I think it would lead to healthier discourse as the tax contributor would be effectively be saying - of all the philanthropic causes I could support, 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.

Re: Much philanthropy is a routinized exchange between salaried bureaucrats

#34

Post by [deleted] » Tue, May 24, 2022, 4:41 AM UTC

gruez wrote: post #8

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.

>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…

[deleted]

Re: Much philanthropy is a routinized exchange between salaried bureaucrats

#35

Post by uvnq » Tue, May 24, 2022, 4:41 AM UTC

akudha wrote: post #31

chii wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I can setup a foundation whose goal is to fund an ugly aspect of society. and why do you get to claim such an aspect is "ugly"? If society, as a whole (or majority) decides such an aspect is ugly, then they can put a law in to outlaw it. The problem isn't at this level of non-profit orgs - the problem is at the civil participation. most people don't participate (not even vote). So those who do get more say, by rela…

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?

Re: Much philanthropy is a routinized exchange between salaried bureaucrats

#36

Post by paulpauper » Tue, May 24, 2022, 4:42 AM UTC

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…

Does anyone still care about Forbes covers? this is not 2001 anymore. Forbes along with Fortune are just shity user contributor content farms now. They got in early on the content farm bandwagon.

Re: Much philanthropy is a routinized exchange between salaried bureaucrats

#37

Post by sokoloff » Tue, May 24, 2022, 4:44 AM UTC

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…

That seems like healthier political discourse would need to precede (rather than naturally follow) such a system.

There are several causes I support; none of them are close to and just slightly more effective than giving that money to the government.

Re: Much philanthropy is a routinized exchange between salaried bureaucrats

#38

Post by jdminhbg » Tue, May 24, 2022, 4:45 AM UTC

wolverine876 wrote: post #30

jdminhbg wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> very much support many of those programs as lifesavers That doesn't really address the issue though, does it? Food stamps are better than nothing, but they do not in fact allow recipients to spend the assistance as they see fit. It's fine to be in favor of social engineering programs, but it's not consistent to then complain that philanthropists' charity comes with strings attached. The government's charity does as…

> It's fine to be in favor of social engineering programs, but it's not consistent to then complain that philanthropists' charity comes with strings attached. The government's charity does as well. I don't know what you mean: This doesn't seem to fit the common definition of social engineering, or we could call stop lights and tax forms social engineering; so I can't say I'm in favor, against, etc. And 'strings attac…

I mean in the sense that it's not cash assistance to the poor; instead, it's the government saying "these are the things you need to buy" and providing a voucher system for those particular things. You cannot decide that you want to economize on food and spend half your SNAP benefits on liquor, and so you cannot decide that you want to economize on food and spend half your SNAP benefits on a car repair to upgrade to a better job that you'd have to drive to.

> we could call ... tax forms social engineering

Tax forms are obviously social engineering. The government incentivizes (having kids, having a mortgage, saving for retirement, charitable giving) and disincentivizes all kinds of things via the tax code.

Re: Much philanthropy is a routinized exchange between salaried bureaucrats

#39

Post by renewiltord » Tue, May 24, 2022, 4:46 AM UTC

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…

Don't worry: some dumbass will end up drawing a large salary to "host galas and fundraising". Unlikely any organization can survive to operate in its primary purpose past a few generations.

Re: Much philanthropy is a routinized exchange between salaried bureaucrats

#40

Post by renewiltord » Tue, May 24, 2022, 4:48 AM UTC

gruez wrote: post #8

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.

>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…

States' rights require states' rights to their money. Federal income tax should be near zero and the Senate representatives should offer treaty money.

Enough theft from my pocket. I'll fund my fellow man. But to fund a man who calls himself my enemy and removes my freedom: it takes a Big Government fanatic to require that.