13 ms·
I think that's a shame. I have never heard of him. How many could he inspire if he was more vocal? But, to each their own.
by dumbfounder 6y ago
I think that's a shame. I have never heard of him. How many could he inspire if he was more vocal? But, to each their own.
- lotsofpulp 6y agoI think it's a shame that all donations aren't anonymous. The government should at least take away the tax deductibility of non anonymous donations.
- lordnacho 6y agoWouldn't the reduce the amount of donations greatly? Gotta think most people do it at least partly for recognition, otherwise there'd be nothing noteworthy about the article we're discussing.
- lotsofpulp 6y agoI would get rid of all tax deductions period, but in the case of non anonymous donations, the chance of quid pro quo and inability to prove it is so high, that I just view it as a tax loophole for the rich. If it lowers the amount people donate, then it proves my point...that people were intending to get something in return, hence not a donation.
- Ericson2314 6y agoAbsolutely a good comment. Tax the rich, replace philanthropy with Democracy. Pathetic that PP is getting downvotes.
- unethical_ban 6y agoGet off the high horse. He didn't explain his original position at all, and frankly it's an ideal that seems very unrealistic. I agree that we should be taxing the ultra-rich a lot more, but "prohibiting donations that have names attached" is legislating morality as much as "don't buy liquor on Sundays".
- lotsofpulp 6y agoI never wrote non anonymous donations should be prohibited.
- unethical_ban 6y agoSo it's better that a hospital not get Beinhoff's hundred million dollars, since you don't like his need for legacy?
- lotsofpulp 6y agoIf society wants the hospital to exist and have funding, then society can decide to raise taxes to pay for it. I don't care about Benioff's need for legacy. I care about reducing corruption, which non anonymous tax deductible donations enable.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- unethical_ban 6y agoI think your idea of controlling "corruption" is simplistic if your argument ends with "let government handle the money".
- jcheng 6y agoUnless there's actual corruption involved (like giving to a "charity" that actually fuels your personal expenses), how could a deductible gift be used a tax loophole? I've heard the misconception that one could use a deduction to bump yourself into a lower tax rate on your entire income, and therefore come out ahead, but that's not how U.S. federal income tax rates work.
- lotsofpulp 6y agoDonate to a selective school, and your descendants get higher probability of admission.
- strken 6y agoIt's like the government is matching your donations, and in the case of certain charities, that means the government is effectively funding lobbyists for you. "Loopholes" are often in the eye of the beholder.
- jcheng 6y agohttps://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/lobbying https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/lobbying
- davinic 6y agoWe could also just tax the income used to make the donations at similar levels to prior top brackets and not depend on philanthropy as a means to fund public institutions or social safety nets.
- white-flame 6y agoThat puts the decision on where to put public good will and non-profitable money sinks solely into the machine of government bureaucracy, which I don't think would be very effective. Currently we incentivize private individual donations, and that lets a lot of things happen quickly and without the requirement of soliciting the permission of a bottlenecked council for anything to happen.
- Retric 6y agoGovernment is often significantly more effective at spending money for charitable works than private charities due to all the overhead involved in running charities. Further, as a private individual I dislike that my tax money is used to in part fund charities that I strongly disagree with. If you want to use your money to support some private crusade that’s fine, but why must we support anything anyone thinks as a worthy cause? It’s in effect a blank check without meaningful oversight. Their are for example homeopathy charities whose donations are tax deductible.
- charles_f 6y agoIsn't budget a part of elections platform, and so democracy? Because certainly when it comes to giving money to people bureaucracy becomes a factor, but then rather than redistributing money, things that you could spend tax money on: - Universal healthcare - Free education - Funding homeless assistance programs - Employment insurance - UBI (granted these last 2 are pretty much just redistributing money) The question is whether you want the few billionaires to decide where to spend the money, or everyone (that is, people who haven't been disenfranchised). AND THEN arguably given the polarization of the US today, I can understand that anyone feels frisky in raising the taxes to found the other side's ideas (being republicans not wanting to fund healthcare or democrats not wanting to fund a wall)
- JoshTriplett 6y agoMaking a very public show of philanthropy as a means of self-promotion or self-aggrandizement isn't awesome, though frankly if letting people feel good with a little recognition results in more donations then that seems well worth it. But there are other reasons to make a public show of philanthropy: to encourage others to give, to be a part of giving campaigns, to draw attention to an issue you consider important, to tell a personal story for why something matters for you, and otherwise to direct that attention towards the cause rather than yourself.
- jb188 6y agoYeah, there's a misconception that it is more morally righteous to give quietly than to give and take credit and that's debatable. $100M is a $100M whether the person is anonymous or not and if not, it can lead to more of the same, even if the motivation is self-aggrandizement. I mean, take that out to a long conclusion and you get a society who's competing to give away the most instead of possess the most.
- burner831234 6y agoI think the reason people suggest anonymity as a morally positive or superior action is because this isn't in trade. You've given it away (as noted above) without having your name in etched letters on a building, without a desire for notoriety and not in trade of previous or in fact continuous poor deeds. Consider for example the controversy around Bezos' donations. It is very similar in fact to tithing instead of the practice of having your name called out in service in front of everyone so you can later trade on that donation for social standing.
- chmod775 6y agoEven if you'd like to pretend there is none, it doesn't change the fact that giving for the sake of giving versus giving for the sake of recognition are different things. Giving anonymously can be a way for the giver to prove to themselves what kind of person they are.
- npunt 6y agoNames everywhere could just as easily mean a culture that celebrates wealth and the wealthy as superior to others, because after all, their names are everywhere. A happenstance donation by a rich person in this society may mean far more than a significant donation by someone less well off. This may create a culture where people see helping others as a suckers game unless you get something back, rather than a moral obligation. On the other hand, a culture of anonymous donations (and less wealth signaling) could indicate a culture where everyone, no matter how rich or poor, is expected to do their part to help others. It depends a lot on what people's takeaways are from these acts, which are shaped by cultural expectations and norms. One should consider the cultural externalities of donations in addition to purely the dollar amounts.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- IfOnlyYouKnew 6y agoThe article mentions Buffet and Gates as being inspired by Feeney. They, in turn, further popularised the idea of giving away large sums of money. I can't even say how a bit of fame for people giving large sums is harmful. And whatever people object to, I doubt it's anywhere close to the significance of the positive effects of giving.
- jandrese 6y agoDonating anonymously is a way of avoiding ending up on the mailing list of every charity in the country. While it wasn't so important in this case because as a former billionaire I assume he had people at a foundation who's job it was to handle his correspondence, but if you are a regular person looking to make a donation it's often a good idea to keep your name and contact info out of it as much as possible. Charities can be really bad about selling your name.
- phaus 6y agoNot sure if it was the case for Chuck, but a small percentage Christians strongly believe that charity should be anonymous because it actually says as much in the bible. I'm not a Christian myself and definitely not rich at all, but I do prefer anonymous donations.
- jamestimmins 6y agoI think this is actually the norm amongst Christians. It just seems like the minority because by nature these folks aren't talking about it.
- wolfhumble 6y agoMatthew 6, 1-4 (NIV): 1 “Be careful not to practice your righteousness in front of others to be seen by them. If you do, you will have no reward from your Father in heaven. 2 “So when you give to the needy, do not announce it with trumpets, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and on the streets, to be honored by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full. 3 But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, 4 so that your giving may be in secret. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.
- superhuzza 6y agoIt's kind of sad how it's framed in those passages - Give in secret, or God will notice and hold back some of those heavenly rewards. As if the whole thing is just a karmic ponzi scheme.
- irrational 6y agoThat's because you are not a billionaire. The article makes it plain that he has talked to other fellow billionaires encouraging them to do the same.