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

71–80 of 265 posts

Re: Much philanthropy is a routinized exchange between salaried bureaucrats

#71

Post by User23 »

Spooky23 wrote: post #12
gruez wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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…

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…

Your offer is acceptable.

Re: Much philanthropy is a routinized exchange between salaried bureaucrats

#72

Post by somethoughts »

bshoemaker wrote: post #54
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…

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.

Yes there's definitely a negative feedback loop currently where:

- the loudest of society villify the rich regardless of whether they are fairly paying taxes or not

- a subset of rich laud each other for coming up with the most creative tax evasion schemes

Some sort of publisher should hold up the most honest, most successful tax patriots and put them up on a magazine cover.

It'd be important to have some separation of the recognition from the actual government (i.e. it should be a private publishing company) to avoid attempts to access government officials and to avoid it looking coerced.

It'd also be important to make it voluntary/opt-in as I'd imagine many would rather just be anonymous.

Re: Much philanthropy is a routinized exchange between salaried bureaucrats

#73

Post by gwbrooks »

Spooky23 wrote: post #12
gruez wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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…

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 current choices lower (or no) federal subsidy.

Practically speaking (not politically speaking), that seems like a point the left and right should be able to agree on.

Re: Much philanthropy is a routinized exchange between salaried bureaucrats

#74

Post by krageon »

habosa wrote: post #68

Don’t let all the shenanigans at the top stop you from doing good. It’s clear that the American system of tax preference for philanthropy is easy to abuse, but while it’s there you might as well use it to help people if you can afford to. 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…

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 to death.

Re: Much philanthropy is a routinized exchange between salaried bureaucrats

#75

Post by kortilla »

krageon wrote: post #74
habosa wrote: post #68

Don’t let all the shenanigans at the top stop you from doing good. It’s clear that the American system of tax preference for philanthropy is easy to abuse, but while it’s there you might as well use it to help people if you can afford to. 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…

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.

Re: Much philanthropy is a routinized exchange between salaried bureaucrats

#76

Post by paisawalla »

krageon wrote: post #74
habosa wrote: post #68

Don’t let all the shenanigans at the top stop you from doing good. It’s clear that the American system of tax preference for philanthropy is easy to abuse, but while it’s there you might as well use it to help people if you can afford to. 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…

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…

What should a non-profit CEO be paid? If it's someone who attracts top talent in the industry or has the connections to large donors, but they have equal/more passion for getting paid than the mission, what's the right choice?

Surely you can see that "get the best person you can for $40k" has limitations as a hiring strategy.

Re: Much philanthropy is a routinized exchange between salaried bureaucrats

#77

Post by kortilla »

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…

> 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.

If you want to throw money straight down the fucking drain, go for it. The federal budget is already not balanced. No matter what rich people donate extra, the money will be squandered exactly the same way it is today but you can’t even attach stipulations.

Statistically speaking, you money will just into the military.

I would much rather have the rich use their influence to push for good things the government doesn’t care about (hunger programs, drug rehab, housing, etc).

Re: Much philanthropy is a routinized exchange between salaried bureaucrats

#78

Post by krzysiek »

> 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 look at a comparison between countries [3] you can see that the US is far behind (percentage-wise, not rank-wise) countries like Netherlands (14%) or Switzerland (13.3%)

1. https://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=content.view&...

2. https://www.privatebank.citibank.com/newcpb-media/media/docu...

3. https://www.axios.com/2019/11/30/most-charitable-countries-w...

Re: Much philanthropy is a routinized exchange between salaried bureaucrats

#79

Post by kortilla »

Spooky23 wrote: post #12
gruez wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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…

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 think we should exercise the people’s desire for small government and relocate military bases to the places that pay for them

Do you know what military bases do? They aren’t there to protect just a local region.

Re: Much philanthropy is a routinized exchange between salaried bureaucrats

#80

Post by ohthehugemanate »

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…

I think you would really enjoy the Nautilus article about Game Theory of anonymous philanthropy:

https://nautil.us/larry-david-and-the-game-theory-of-anonymo...

The opening call out is pretty great, too. Ever see the Curb Your Enthusiasm episode where Larry's big donation is upstaged by Ted's anonymous donation?

Visible philanthropy is not a simple system of rewards. It's much more interesting than that.

Post reply on HN