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

81–90 of 265 posts

Re: Much philanthropy is a routinized exchange between salaried bureaucrats

#81

Post by consp »

kortilla wrote: post #75
krageon wrote: post #74

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…

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.

This argument is always raised but in the end, the most work is done by volunteers and the top of those big corporations (the charity status is just a tax dodge) reap wealth like in any other corporation.

The lower down payed employees get the "you don't get much but you work for a charity" speech and get abused as much as the volunteers.

Let the CEO do it out of charity and take a 1$ salary and see if it all goes to hell. I very much doubt it.

Re: Much philanthropy is a routinized exchange between salaried bureaucrats

#82

Post by xg15 »

> Still, concerns about political equity—bearing in mind that philanthropy is only one of the ways in which capital can be converted into power—deserve systematic and rigorous investigation. Several universities have created centers for the research. It’s either apt or ironic that philanthropy pays for this, too.

Yeah, and I'm sure those research centers will be completely unbiased and unafraid to bite the hand that feeds them...

Re: Much philanthropy is a routinized exchange between salaried bureaucrats

#83

Post by rhacker »

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…

It's not even the CEOs. Most non-profits are just staffed by busy-bodied millennials working up a bunch of corporate memphis themed junk content. It actually is incredible how many people work jobs at a non-profit that think they are the stars of "The Bold Type" (I know that show is about a magazine). Doing nothing important all day except talking to their friends and posting it on social media - expecting that THAT was work. Also it's late and I'm salty.

Re: Much philanthropy is a routinized exchange between salaried bureaucrats

#84

Post by headsoup »

kortilla wrote: post #75
krageon wrote: post #74

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…

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.

By that logic open source software should be mostly crap...

High pay bringing high competence and passion seems a rather poor assumption.

Re: Much philanthropy is a routinized exchange between salaried bureaucrats

#85

Post by beefield »

Okay, I think I have some weird blind spot here. I have really hard time understanding the reasoning behind philanthropy being a societal good that should be subsidized by taxpayers.

Let's take econ 101 and revealed preferences. It is obvious that if you give 100 bucks to a charity you get utility worth more than that 100 bucks. Otherwise you would not do that. And there is zero difference on the mechanics there if you compare to buying a movie ticket. Watching the movie gives you more utility than what the ticket costs. So, from the point of view of the donor we can think charity nothing more, nothing less than entertainment, and the question is, why one type of entertainment is tax deductible while another is not?

If we compare these transactions not only from the donor's point of view, we notice a clear distinction in power balance between those. The movie ticket transaction is relatively power neutral. Both sides have roughly equal say in the contract, both are taking part of a balanced business transaction. Charity then, is far from being power neutral, the donor has all the power in their hands. Not exactly a reason for charity being the tax-subsidized transaction here.

But charity makes good things. Like... creating a job for a movie teather cashier is somehow not a good thing? Nope, not convincing either.

As said, I have a blind spot here. I find no serious reason why charity should be subsidized. Yes, it feels good and makes good, but so do normal business transactions. If you think that charity is somehow better way to organize social security for the poor than government-tax-mandated social security, think again. (hint: prisoners' dilemma) If you think that you would like to support poor voluntarily, but not by force, you do not understand (or want to understand) that that does not result to sufficient support for the poor.

Re: Much philanthropy is a routinized exchange between salaried bureaucrats

#86

Post by cillian64 »

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…

Look at organisations like Against Malaria Fund. 100% of your donations go to buying and distributing bed nets and they collect a lot of data to prove that they end up hung above the beds of the right people.

There are an awful lot of rubbish charities but there are at least a few worthwhile ones so it’s not an excuse for not donating.

Re: Much philanthropy is a routinized exchange between salaried bureaucrats

#87

Post by somethoughts »

ohthehugemanate wrote: post #80
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.

I remember that episode!

I think it'd still work - you'd just have to tweaked it a bit - could definitely have the list ordered with most patriotic "anonymous" tax contributors listed in order and then reward the first three non-anonymous highest tax contributors with the full 'bio'/backstory in the magazine spread.

Re: Much philanthropy is a routinized exchange between salaried bureaucrats

#88

Post by jum1p »

"They who have founded philanthropic institutions, such as no other country can boast of! Philanthropic institutions forsooth! As though you rendered the proletarians a service in first sucking out their very life-blood and then practising your self-complacent, Pharisaic philanthropy upon them, placing yourselves before the world as mighty benefactors of humanity when you give back to the plundered victims the hundredth part of what belongs to them! Charity which degrades him who gives more than him who takes; charity which treads the downtrodden still deeper in the dust, which demands that the degraded, the pariah cast out by society, shall first surrender the last that remains to him, his very claim to manhood, shall first beg for mercy before your mercy deigns to press, in the shape of an alms, the brand of degradation upon his brow." Karl Marx

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/condition-w...

Re: Much philanthropy is a routinized exchange between salaried bureaucrats

#89

Post by somethoughts »

kortilla wrote: post #77
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 ev…

Well its more of a glass is half full outlook - their making the tax payments regardless. They might as well wear the t-shirt emblazoned with "I paid my taxes and all I got was this lousy t-shirt" with pride, no?

Re: Much philanthropy is a routinized exchange between salaried bureaucrats

#90

Post by verisimi »

beefield wrote: post #85

Okay, I think I have some weird blind spot here. I have really hard time understanding the reasoning behind philanthropy being a societal good that should be subsidized by taxpayers. Let's take econ 101 and revealed preferences. It is obvious that if you give 100 bucks to a charity you get utility worth more than that 100 bucks. Otherwise you would not do that . And there is zero difference on the mechanics there if…

It's a tax wheeze.

When Bill Gates or some other billionaire allocates some portion of his wealth to his foundation, this is tax he doesn't need to pay and can write off. The foundation needs to appear to be doing good, but it can also develop his other financial interests.

I think it's better thought of as tax efficient part of public relations spend.

Post reply on HN