3 ms·

Basically it seems like the premise is that the rich generally like donating because of the publicity it generates for them (trading financial capital to social

by jadbox 8y ago

Basically it seems like the premise is that the rich generally like donating because of the publicity it generates for them (trading financial capital to social capital). However, in India there is a fear of being noticed by the 'taxman' and being asked/audited for higher taxes (it's not clear). This means the wealthy are afriad of publically donating, and hence, donate less because there's no 'social capital' to buy via the donation. At least this was my interpretation.

Liber-Abaci 8y ago
My interpretation was also they didn't trust the charities/groups weren't embezzling the money. >So, for instance, a non-profit that works to improve sanitation could use donor funds to build toilets, hire more people or even buy a laptop or other equipment that might make them more efficient. But most donors, Mr Bhagwati says, will set conditions about how they want the money spent. In other words, they will insist on the toilets being built. He calls this "restricted giving" and says it's hard to coax people to give any other way.
jacobolus 8y ago
In the US, the federal government heavily subsidizes rich people’s charitable contributions. https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/charitable-organizations/charitable-contribution-deductions https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/charitable-organiz... Even when completely legal, rich Americans use charities as a means to avoid taxes while still using their money to influence policy or pursue other agendas. But there are also a plethora of charity-related tax evasion, money laundering, and fraud schemes. The Trump Foundation is a good recent example of how criminal schemes tied to charitable organizations (like white collar crime more generally) go largely uninvestigated and unpunished in the USA. The brazen repeated crimes were only noticed because the chairman/founder became President and started attracting scrutiny from the media.

by jadbox 8y ago

Liber-Abaci 8y ago

My interpretation was also they didn't trust the charities/groups weren't embezzling the money. >So, for instance, a non-profit that works to improve sanitation could use donor funds to build toilets, hire more people or even buy a laptop or other equipment that might make them more efficient. But most donors, Mr Bhagwati says, will set conditions about how they want the money spent. In other words, they will insist on the toilets being built. He calls this "restricted giving" and says it's hard to coax people to give any other way.

jacobolus 8y ago

In the US, the federal government heavily subsidizes rich people’s charitable contributions. https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/charitable-organizations/charitable-contribution-deductions https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/charitable-organiz... Even when completely legal, rich Americans use charities as a means to avoid taxes while still using their money to influence policy or pursue other agendas. But there are also a plethora of charity-related tax evasion, money laundering, and fraud schemes. The Trump Foundation is a good recent example of how criminal schemes tied to charitable organizations (like white collar crime more generally) go largely uninvestigated and unpunished in the USA. The brazen repeated crimes were only noticed because the chairman/founder became President and started attracting scrutiny from the media.