4 ms·

Because generally local initiatives driven by people are better executed or better managed than government projects. Even if the government wanted to redistribu

Because generally local initiatives driven by people are better executed or better managed than government projects. Even if the government wanted to redistribute the same money to charities, there is a significant overhead cost of people that need to be employed to sift through viable projects. I live in Belgium, where the system is a bit different (you get a 45% tax deduction on money donated if a charity has an accreditation) and the tax deduction is a significant part of why I give to charity. If there would be no deduction, I would still give, but a lot less.

Retric 8y ago
The problem is not that charities are efficient or not, it's that your spending public money on a tax deduction without vetting what projects are being worked on. Effectively, you collect money from people and then deny those same people a say in what it's spent on. As you say, even the ones you support are not worth giving much of your money to. But, you are also directly supporting charities with your tax money that you actively disagree with. EX: Direct Food Aid is generally (though not always) considered a bad idea, but if even a small portion of people disagree then everyone chips in.
- charlesdm 8y ago
  I'm not saying they're not worth giving money to however. In the case of Belgium there is proper vetting, and not every project can get an accreditation. But the deduction incentivises giving. I tend to gift double the money I would without the deduction, because the cost is exactly the same to me. The US system is probably too generous when comparing both. I personally don't oppose the deduction. Most are not investment vehicles but actual charities, doing something good in the world. I wish more people would do something good in the world. I'm sure more money goes lost every year due to political corruption and graft, than through the charity tax deduction.
  - Retric 8y ago
    > I tend to gift double the money I would without the deduction, because the cost is exactly the same to me Then you give ~exactly the same money, it's the public that's giving more money. Forcing everyone else in your country to chip in just a little more for roads is not the same as giving more money.
- prostoalex 8y ago
  > without vetting what projects are being worked on There's a sort of pre-vetting in the charity's original 501(c)3 application. A charity can also be investigated and stripped of its status if it's found to be non-compliant with the public benefit clause.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

Retric 8y ago

The problem is not that charities are efficient or not, it's that your spending public money on a tax deduction without vetting what projects are being worked on. Effectively, you collect money from people and then deny those same people a say in what it's spent on. As you say, even the ones you support are not worth giving much of your money to. But, you are also directly supporting charities with your tax money that you actively disagree with. EX: Direct Food Aid is generally (though not always) considered a bad idea, but if even a small portion of people disagree then everyone chips in.

charlesdm 8y ago
I'm not saying they're not worth giving money to however. In the case of Belgium there is proper vetting, and not every project can get an accreditation. But the deduction incentivises giving. I tend to gift double the money I would without the deduction, because the cost is exactly the same to me. The US system is probably too generous when comparing both. I personally don't oppose the deduction. Most are not investment vehicles but actual charities, doing something good in the world. I wish more people would do something good in the world. I'm sure more money goes lost every year due to political corruption and graft, than through the charity tax deduction.
- Retric 8y ago
  > I tend to gift double the money I would without the deduction, because the cost is exactly the same to me Then you give ~exactly the same money, it's the public that's giving more money. Forcing everyone else in your country to chip in just a little more for roads is not the same as giving more money.
prostoalex 8y ago
> without vetting what projects are being worked on There's a sort of pre-vetting in the charity's original 501(c)3 application. A charity can also be investigated and stripped of its status if it's found to be non-compliant with the public benefit clause.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]