3 ms·

No, but you can have a scenario where you give say $10 million, but only end up with 1.2 million less cash after the donation. See https://avc.com/2018/05/givi

• hypersoar 9y ago
  Oh...kay? If you could end up with $1.2 million more in cash after the donation, then you'd have an argument. But in your example, the donor has facilitated an additional $8.8 million from the government, which I don't necessarily see a problem with. I certainly don't see a moral problem with it on the part of the donor. On the contrary, if you can get anybody to match you %700, then the moral case for giving to charity is only strengthened.
• maxerickson 9y ago
  You are still losing access to $10 million dollars of value. I can see taking issue with the forgone taxes or whatever, but a $10 million stock donation doesn't keep any extra money in your pocket (which is the scam proposed in the WOT above, that big donations somehow are profitable).
• zodiac 9y ago
  Yes, and I would argue that under any reasonable way of quantifying generosity your generosity would be "measured" at around $1.2m, and qualitatively I think it is fair to apply the term "generous" to you. An isomorphic situation is if Congress passed a law matching at a 1.2:8.8 ratio every charitable donation made to Watsi, and next year you donate $1.2m to Watsi; you end up with $1.2m less, Watsi ends up with $10m more.