61–70 of 265 posts
I’m not sure how the title got changed. But “Much philanthropy is a routinized exchange between salaried bureaucrats” is the caption on the header image not the actual title.
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.
As an anecdote, I'd invite you to consider Silvio Berlusconi, which at various points in times was both the richest man and the top tax payer in Italy (and amongst the top in Europe), and a leading politician for 20 years.
He highlighted his tax contributions often, as an attempt to show that he was actually bringing a lot of value to the State, but still ran on a platform of "taxes are evil".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Tax deductions shouldn't be incentives for random policy ideas Taxes are one of the main ways the government tries to influence behavior (eg. sin taxes, green energy incentives). What do you suggest should take their place? Or do you think that government shouldn't be in the business of influencing behavior entirely?
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Imagine Organization A (i.e. non-profit organization) offers to accept your gift for $N and throws you a gala with you as the beneficiary.
Then imagine Organization B (i.e. the government) forcefully accepts your a gift for $N that you are willing to give regardless of the subtle implied threat of force because you are appreciative of what it does for you and your community but there is no recognition and parts of Organization B are bragging about how they are taking money from you/villifying you and actively being rewarded with promotions for doing so.
I'd imagine most would be more happy with Organization A.
And if one is firmly committed to a "soak the rich" outlook, you can just think of this as a way to massage their ego for free.
I’m not sure how the title got changed. But “Much philanthropy is a routinized exchange between salaried bureaucrats” is the caption on the header image not the actual title.
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…
> I get to pay even higher taxes because my locality actually provides things like sound education. Which your area benefits from....
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.
If your company matches donations, take them up on that. That means for $1 pre-tax (~$0.60 out of your pocket) you can give $2.00 to an organization that could use the money. That’s almost 3.5x force multiplication.
Also I promise it will feel good, and if you choose a local organization that doesn’t have mega donors (not that the big ones are all bad) they will truly notice your help.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
I do not think that would matter as much as you think. As an anecdote, I'd invite you to consider Silvio Berlusconi, which at various points in times was both the richest man and the top tax payer in Italy (and amongst the top in Europe), and a leading politician for 20 years. He highlighted his tax contributions often, as an attempt to show that he was actually bringing a lot of value to the State, but still ran on…
One can have a morally consistent world view that holds that voluntarily submitting oneself to the state's tax obligations to be a moral good, comparable to donating to the state, while relying on the state's apparatus of violence (the courts, police and prisons which compel compliance with state edicts) to tax the private income of people at large is an evil.
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…
That majority is not evenly distributed across the country. In areas where those people do form a majority, they do enact laws supporting those things. In areas where there is not a majority supporting those things, they don't.