19 ms·

Much philanthropy is a routinized exchange between salaried bureaucrats

234 points by pw 4y ago

jum1p 4y ago
philan trophy english is beautiful
tbrownaw 4y ago
I'd rather not have all the eggs in one basket every time there's some mandatory fad going around.
- drewcoo 4y ago
  I agree. Especially if that basket we're relying on is oligarch philanthropy.
- vmception 4y ago
  you mean you’re not going to send $10 to the Red Cross after the next earthquake in a developing nation?
ge96 4y ago
Too many people to help. Corruption. Self sustainability. But yeah it is nice to try.
- wolverine876 4y ago
  > it is nice to try We do more than try, we provide critical services to huge numbers of people. Nothing will ever be perfect, but if the standard is 100% or failure, then no point in getting out of bed in the morning.
lmm 4y ago
I don't necessarily want it to go away entirely, but the tax breaks should be abolished. It's particularly offensive to see the state and local tax deduction (money that actually goes to help one's fellows in the ways they see fit, without being beholden to the whims of the "donor") capped while 503c "donations" remain an unlimited deduction.
- s1artibartfast 4y ago
  That’s funny, I feel the exact opposite for the same reasons. I think charitable donations are far better than taxes because the donors get to direct where the money goes and have say over its use. Those giving up their money are in the best position to ensure it is used towards the ends they want. I think direct oversight is a positive attribute and useful in ensuring the altruistic goals are effectively met. I also oppose local tax deductions despite standing to benefit greatly.
  - lmm 4y ago
    "The ends they want" - as opposed to the ends the recipients want (as expressed through an admittedly imperfect democratic system) - is exactly what I object to. Most "donations" are made to advance a personal agenda at least in part; even when the donor sincerely believes they're doing what's best for people, that's usually a reflection of their personal politics and you'll often find other people believing the exact opposite. It's fine to fund personal causes, admirable even, but you shouldn't be given a tax break for it.
    - solveit 4y ago
      Would you be happy with government-designed (so presumably democratic) tests and quotas for which charities get the tax breaks?
      - daniel-cussen 4y ago
        You know what could be good, these charities talk about stories, not their statistics. Maybe they could humanistically keep records of their stories, like use a good system for that, maybe part digital, but with paper, so they can be read. Like the complaints at Liga Chilena Contra la Epilepsia, they just have a Sugerencias y Reclamos book, which you can read (though they told me it is not for me to read). You can see for instance that they addressed one complaint they got a lot, which was the lack of cashiers, so in fact with their remodel five years ago they changed it completely so they now have up to 8 cashiers at a time, and short wait times. My favorite Chilean pharmacy, I'll repeat here the comment I left for that charity: "Un siete!"
birksherty 4y ago
https://wwe.youtube.com/watch?v=d_zt3kGW1NM https://wwe.youtube.com/watch?v=d_zt3kGW1NM Although not directly related.
- jwilk 4y ago
  Fixed link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d_zt3kGW1NM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d_zt3kGW1NM
ThrowITout4321 4y ago
No, but it's troubling to know that some of these non profits will live forever. I can setup a foundation whose goal is to fund an ugly aspect of society. If I give it enough money the foundation can live forever thru wise investments of its endowment. There would be nothing to stop it from doing its work forever. The foundation can even influence political causes by funding research that support the foundation's cause. The tax except foundation can't directly lobby but it can fund research that will have a political impact. Charitable foundations should have a finite number of years to do their work.
- chii 4y ago
  > I can setup a foundation whose goal is to fund an ugly aspect of society. and why do you get to claim such an aspect is "ugly"? If society, as a whole (or majority) decides such an aspect is ugly, then they can put a law in to outlaw it. The problem isn't at this level of non-profit orgs - the problem is at the civil participation. most people don't participate (not even vote). So those who do get more say, by relative participation rates.
  - akudha 4y ago
    If society, as a whole (or majority) decides such an aspect is ugly, then they can put a law in to outlaw it. It is good in theory, but does it work in practice though? For example, majority of the country supports $15 minimum wage, access to abortion, maternity leave etc. Doesn't mean any of this is happening. There are so many "think tanks" and non-profits whose sole job is to advocate shitty ideas of their ultra rich patrons. A small minority with huge resources can consistently do stuff that the rest of us can only dream of. Even if civil participation is good, a well funded foundation can twist and turn the narrative to their advantage and confuse the voters.
    - uvnq 4y ago
      What makes you think the majority supports this?
      - 4y ago
somethoughts 4y ago
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 hugely beneficial for certain types of wealthy individuals. Often times wealthy people enjoy being on these lists as it helps their business, PR, etc. in addition to recognition. I think it would lead to healthier discourse as the tax contributor would be effectively be saying - of all the philanthropic causes I could support, I am purposely choosing to give up that 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.
- bshoemaker 4y ago
  I have always thought this. The fundamental way this is discussed today (taxation as a punitive measure) rather than celebrating the contribution to society titans of industry make when they pay their taxes.
  - riffraff 4y ago
    I do not think that would matter as much as you think. As an anecdote, I'd invite you to consider Silvio Berlusconi, which at various points in times was both the richest man and the top tax payer in Italy (and amongst the top in Europe), and a leading politician for 20 years. He highlighted his tax contributions often, as an attempt to show that he was actually bringing a lot of value to the State, but still ran on a platform of "taxes are evil".
    - CryptoPunk 4y ago
      >>but still ran on a platform of "taxes are evil". One can have a morally consistent world view that holds that voluntarily submitting oneself to the state's tax obligations to be a moral good, comparable to donating to the state, while relying on the state's apparatus of violence (the courts, police and prisons which compel compliance with state edicts) to tax the private income of people at large is an evil.
jagtesh 4y ago
Skimmed through. Here’s a thought: What’s the alternative to philanthropy? If the answer is “democracy“, what does it mean in this context? To me, that means an elected body that decides through representation what is the best use of funds. It does so with no direct oversight, or “unacceptable paternalism”. Sounds an awful lot like a government, doesn’t it? How does a government raise funds? Through taxes (simplified view for the sake of argument. Ignore printing money and selling treasury bonds for a moment). But this is how we function already. So in lieu of philanthropy, can we create a new class of voluntary tax? Or raise taxes on high income? Considering that philanthropy is a purely voluntary act - I think forcing anyone is against that spirit and a voluntary tax, or volunteering funding of govt projects could be the solution. Having said that, I fail to see how this will not also get politicized and lead to greater influence for the donors. I’m not sure if there’s a way to accomplish that while still keeping things voluntary, in the spirit of philanthropy.
- asdff 4y ago
  If you want to voluntarily engage in a 'public' philanthropy ran by the government, you can just buy a government bond.
  - s1artibartfast 4y ago
    Alternatively, the fed and every state accepts donations. The number of people that actively donate to the government is quite small while the number that advocate for higher tax rate on others is quite High. Meanwhile, the state of California just celebrated a record tax year collecting a hundred billion dollars (30%) over the budget, and is struggling to find programs to squander it on.
    - corrral 4y ago
      > The number of people that actively donate to the government is quite small while the number that advocate for higher tax rate on others is quite High. So? It's reasonable to advocate higher taxes for all while not harming oneself for much more limited public benefit in the meantime. This often gets trotted out as a "gotcha", but it's not.
christkv 4y ago
In some cases yes. When we dump free cloths and food in countries destroying local economies the good it does is a net negative creating dependency on donations and limiting local development. Why buy from local farms or cloth manufactures when it’s free.
Proven 4y ago
[dead]
pw 4y ago
I’m not sure how the title got changed. But “Much philanthropy is a routinized exchange between salaried bureaucrats” is the caption on the header image not the actual title.
- Teever 4y ago
  I would imagine that Dang changed it because of the tendency of articles with baiting questions for headlines tend to result in people skipping reading over the article and going right to answering the baiting question.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
habosa 4y ago
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 almost 3.5x force multiplication. Also I promise it will feel good, and if you choose a local organization that doesn’t have mega donors (not that the big ones are all bad) they will truly notice your help.
- krageon 4y ago
  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 to death.
  - nivenkos 4y ago
    Since the choice is often restricted for these options, I usually choose Doctors Without Borders since at least they're actually out there doing stuff on the ground. Otherwise the FSFE when it's an option in Europe since their Public Money, Public Code campaign is great.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - kortilla 4y ago
    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.
    - 4y ago
krzysiek 4y ago
> In the contemporary world, philanthropy is distinctively American. We give about four hundred and seventy billion dollars a year—more if you count donations of time, physical labor, and material. America’s total is ahead of any other country’s, even as a percentage of G.D.P. Well, this is just not true. Americans give 2.1% of GDP to charity [1] while the whole world gives just under 3% [2]. Also when you take a look at a comparison between countries [3] you can see that the US is far behind (percentage-wise, not rank-wise) countries like Netherlands (14%) or Switzerland (13.3%) 1. https://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=content.view&cpid=42 https://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=content.view&... 2. https://www.privatebank.citibank.com/newcpb-media/media/documents/insights/Philanthropy-and-global-economy.pdf https://www.privatebank.citibank.com/newcpb-media/media/docu... 3. https://www.axios.com/2019/11/30/most-charitable-countries-world https://www.axios.com/2019/11/30/most-charitable-countries-w...
- paisawalla 4y ago
  I suspect this accounts for the discrepancy in their accounting > more if you count donations of time, physical labor and material
- benpbenp 4y ago
  Your global figure includes both donations and value of time donated ([2], pg.8) Your US figure ([1]) doesn't say anything about value of time donated so I'd assume it is not included. Finally, the metric where Netherlands and Switzerland come out on top in [3] is in size of philanthropic assets vs GDP. This is noteworthy for sure but is a an entirely different thing than amount of yearly donations.
  - krzysiek 4y ago
    You're totally right about donations + value of time. Thank you for pointing that out. It's hard to tell if these numbers can be compared. Also [4] paints a very different picture (although it's for 2016). I think that philanthropic assets should correlate to donations, but you're right also here the numbers from this source cannot be compared to the numbers I mentioned before. [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_charitable_donation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_charitabl...
xg15 4y ago
> 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...
beefield 4y ago
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.
- verisimi 4y ago
  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.
- concordDance 4y ago
  Subsidize things with positive externalities (e.g. territorial defence) and tax things with negative ones (e.g. industrial processes that pollute the air). In this case the donor gets his entertainment and good feelings and as a positive externality a child doesn't get malaria.
jum1p 4y ago
"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-working-class/ch13.htm https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/condition-w...
ccbccccbbcccbb 4y ago
In the best traditions of newspeak, the term 'philanthropy' doesn't specify the exact beneficiaries of the 'love' being addressed just like the phrase 'eradication of poverty' doesn't specify the exact means of said eradication.
spicyusername 4y ago
> Much philanthropy is a routinized exchange between salaried bureaucrats ...And much isn't...
- ZeroGravitas 4y ago
  Weirdly, though it sounds negative out of context, this line in the article is trying to portray this as a good thing, in comparison to some rich guy who lives elsewhere ruining your local school system for no good reason.
ZeroGravitas 4y ago
Another only mildly disguised attack on democracy. > If you’re used to thinking that our democratic system is in bad shape, that can sound jarring. But she’s working in the tradition of what philosophers call “ideal theory”; the aim is to sketch out what a good system would be, assuming that everyone fully complied with its rules. I'm used to thinking that democracy is in poor shape because rich and powerful people prevent it from spreading further. Which seems appropriate for this topic. But instead of diving into that, this author seems to take as a fairly key element of their argument that people getting stupid rich and then doing government type stuff without democratic oversight is good because the obvious alternative, democratic governance is fundamentally broken. I'll check out the book by Emma Saunders-Hastings, “Private Virtues, Public Vices: Philanthropy and Democratic Equality” as its arguments sound pretty sensible.
- itronitron 4y ago
  A good system needs to be resilient to people in power (the rule enforcers or sub-rule makers) not complying with the rules.
  - throwaway2048 4y ago
    Governments aren't the only people in power in modern America, billionaire (philanthropist or otherwise) hold as much or more power than any politician.
- gruez 4y ago
  >this author seems to take as a fairly key element of their argument that people getting stupid rich and then doing government type stuff without democratic oversight is good [...] Which part is bad? The "government type stuff" or the "without democratic oversight"? I agree that billionaires fielding their own armies/police forces would be pretty bad, but what's wrong with funding homeless shelters or schools? If I decide to volunteer at a soup kitchen, am I also "doing government type stuff without democratic oversight"?
  - kodah 4y ago
throwaway14356 4y ago
i imagine it would be possible to annonimize donations via a 3rd party and limit the peaks by spreading them out over time. Like a max increase in monthly budget. But im not sure how that would negatively affect budgeting
dredmorbius 4y ago
For an excellent exploration of many of the contradictions and dark sides of philanthropy, I strongly recommend the podcast Tiny Spark, by Amy Costello. I've submitted a few episodes to HN in the past (with little pick-up). The issue of donor-induced bias and misdirection is a frequent one. Unfortunately, both the podcast and its host, Amy Costello, seem to have gone dark as of this past December. I've written the organisation, the NonProfit Quarterly, several times, and made inquiries elsewhere, but have received no word on what's going on. The back-catalogue remains available and excellent however. https://nonprofitquarterly.org/tiny-spark/ https://nonprofitquarterly.org/tiny-spark/ https://nitter.kavin.rocks/tinyspark_org https://nitter.kavin.rocks/tinyspark_org https://toot.cat/@dredmorbius/108335472990676476 https://toot.cat/@dredmorbius/108335472990676476
mistrial9 4y ago
Amusing to see some of the viewpoints today, dollar-talk about dollars.. as a person with an arts background, I can say that philantropy is obvious -- certain activities that people want to do, cannot be done without some kind of backing.. It is a matter of enabling activity that just could not happen otherwise. Some of the participants were vaguely aware that a "CEO" was being paid somewhere, but what was important was the programs. Who cares about the CEO. It is the other money counters that cared most, not participants. Similarly with "who is running this"/socal dominance.. the other dominance people cared.. so what? On the other hand, the amount of random friction, surprising attitude moments and personal instability with cat-herding dynamics, is notable. Surviving the year is a real concern. Most of the comments here are more aligned with the problems of "Cancer Inc" or "Red Cross" sorts of non-profits, where the mission is real but the massive insititution is decades old and owns a lot of property and equipment, and the executive branch really is in a different world, and people are hired to do boring jobs. Lastly, it is famously true that huge, huge groups are non-profits, where a lot of money changes hands.. and those kinds of setups are closed to your questions, e.g. hospitals and big league sports. ok one more - the "royalty" of those like the Bishop Museum or the Playboy Golf Championship in the 1980s, which both devolved into giant, serious scams where people actually, eventually went to jail. have fun with your non-profits! others did...
dontbenebby 4y ago
Yup. Money isn't the issue with nonprofits (well aside from paying your execs multiples of the max on the GS scale while whining if the low level staffers ask to be paid in line with the GS payscale) The issue is they pay their executives $$$$$ while insisting low level employees take much less than they'd make as government employees while feeling entitled to shape someone's career for the rest of their LIFE if they leave the organization on bad terms. Someone told me "no one gets fired on K street". I did. I moved in with my parents, learned to code, and signed a lease in line with my budget on an apartment in my home county, where yet another nonprofit profited from my knowledge while abusing me. Ex: look at page 7 here: https://cdt.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/CDT-2015-990-FINAL.pdf https://cdt.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/CDT-2015-990-FINA... Then look here: https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/pay-leave/salaries-wages/salary-tables/pdf/2022/DCB.pdf https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/pay-leave/salaries... The entitlement of these entities is astounding. You can only repeat the same confidence tricks so many times before men with guns come into your house like it's Belfast in the 80s or you have civil unrest on an unprecedented scale. I've interviewed places that went on to full on unionize, then applied again after the unionization thinking I could discard my previous extremely disrespectful experiences that were hand waved away, only to have people conduct the process like I'm trying to order a vodka mate at Waterfall[6]. (As in conducting the interview with dripping sarcasm and a tone like they're going to try to put a cigarette out on me, which is not something I want done, though thanks for the hole in my best black t-shirt because I decided to go to the club they didn't write about in LA Times or whatever.) I'm gonna swing back to a research project I'm working on in a moment, but it says everything about thew state of nonprofits all the world over that when back before the 2020 election, I asked my bank for a safe deposit box and a funeral home for a pointer on someone who can draw up a will that it felt like the entire planet lost their minds. (They didn't help with either, since I'm not a boomer, and so I closed my account. Enjoy the bank run and stock crash, you rude little woman!) The insurrection was illegal, and murder is bad, but unfortunately I think it took events like that, or the power failure in Texas[2] or the condo collapse in Florida[3] are what it took to teach folks that pairing no income tax at the state level with hatred of "feds" and sales tax will end with you sitting alone in your McMansion or condo, wondering if it will collapse in on you due to an extreme weather event, or a nuclear strike conducted by a rouge state you insisted via your purposefully terrible voting be handled with kid gloves[4][5]. At the end of the day, the world we are seeing on the news today is the one that folks from generations prior to mine (including GenX) very violently insisted on. I'm on the autistic spectrum -- I know people sometimes say one thing and mean another, so all I can do is try to put enough information out there that people can try to make good decisions under uncertainty. (I wrote the above while pounding espresso that I put on my Capital One[8] card, since based on my interactions with their employees I don't think they care if I pay my bill, and there's no cash in MY wallet.) [1] https://gizmodo.com/google-funded-think-tank-fires-google-critic-1798627458 https://gizmodo.com/google-funded-think-tank-fires-google-cr... [2] https://www.npr.org/2021/02/17/968577281/what-went-wrong-with-the-electric-grid-in-texas https://www.npr.org/2021/02/17/968577281/what-went-wrong-wit... [3] https://www.npr.org/2021/08/26/1031245430/surfside-condo-collapse-corrosion https://www.npr.org/2021/08/26/1031245430/surfside-condo-col... [4] https://www.npr.org/2022/05/21/1100547908/russia-ends-natural-gas-exports-to-finland https://www.npr.org/2022/05/21/1100547908/russia-ends-natura... [5] https://www.npr.org/2022/01/15/1072385995/north-korea-is-testing-hypersonic-weapons-should-the-west-be-worried https://www.npr.org/2022/01/15/1072385995/north-korea-is-tes... [6] http://water-gate.de/de/contact/location/location.html http://water-gate.de/de/contact/location/location.html [7] I changed my SSID, you're not as smart as you think :-) [8] https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2019/08/woman-accused-of-capital-one-hack-had-stolen-data-from-30-companies-authorities-say/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2019/08/woman-accused-of...
adhesive_wombat 4y ago
> “Charity is a cold, grey, loveless thing. If a rich man wants to help the poor, he should pay his taxes gladly, not dole out money at whim.” Clement Attlee, 1920
bstr_ 4y ago
"routinized" is not a word.

234 points by pw 4y ago

jum1p 4y ago

philan trophy english is beautiful

tbrownaw 4y ago

I'd rather not have all the eggs in one basket every time there's some mandatory fad going around.

drewcoo 4y ago
I agree. Especially if that basket we're relying on is oligarch philanthropy.
vmception 4y ago
you mean you’re not going to send $10 to the Red Cross after the next earthquake in a developing nation?

ge96 4y ago

Too many people to help. Corruption. Self sustainability. But yeah it is nice to try.

wolverine876 4y ago
> it is nice to try We do more than try, we provide critical services to huge numbers of people. Nothing will ever be perfect, but if the standard is 100% or failure, then no point in getting out of bed in the morning.

lmm 4y ago

I don't necessarily want it to go away entirely, but the tax breaks should be abolished. It's particularly offensive to see the state and local tax deduction (money that actually goes to help one's fellows in the ways they see fit, without being beholden to the whims of the "donor") capped while 503c "donations" remain an unlimited deduction.

s1artibartfast 4y ago
That’s funny, I feel the exact opposite for the same reasons. I think charitable donations are far better than taxes because the donors get to direct where the money goes and have say over its use. Those giving up their money are in the best position to ensure it is used towards the ends they want. I think direct oversight is a positive attribute and useful in ensuring the altruistic goals are effectively met. I also oppose local tax deductions despite standing to benefit greatly.
- lmm 4y ago
  "The ends they want" - as opposed to the ends the recipients want (as expressed through an admittedly imperfect democratic system) - is exactly what I object to. Most "donations" are made to advance a personal agenda at least in part; even when the donor sincerely believes they're doing what's best for people, that's usually a reflection of their personal politics and you'll often find other people believing the exact opposite. It's fine to fund personal causes, admirable even, but you shouldn't be given a tax break for it.
  - solveit 4y ago
    Would you be happy with government-designed (so presumably democratic) tests and quotas for which charities get the tax breaks?
    - daniel-cussen 4y ago
      You know what could be good, these charities talk about stories, not their statistics. Maybe they could humanistically keep records of their stories, like use a good system for that, maybe part digital, but with paper, so they can be read. Like the complaints at Liga Chilena Contra la Epilepsia, they just have a Sugerencias y Reclamos book, which you can read (though they told me it is not for me to read). You can see for instance that they addressed one complaint they got a lot, which was the lack of cashiers, so in fact with their remodel five years ago they changed it completely so they now have up to 8 cashiers at a time, and short wait times. My favorite Chilean pharmacy, I'll repeat here the comment I left for that charity: "Un siete!"

birksherty 4y ago

https://wwe.youtube.com/watch?v=d_zt3kGW1NM https://wwe.youtube.com/watch?v=d_zt3kGW1NM Although not directly related.

jwilk 4y ago
Fixed link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d_zt3kGW1NM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d_zt3kGW1NM

ThrowITout4321 4y ago

No, but it's troubling to know that some of these non profits will live forever. I can setup a foundation whose goal is to fund an ugly aspect of society. If I give it enough money the foundation can live forever thru wise investments of its endowment. There would be nothing to stop it from doing its work forever. The foundation can even influence political causes by funding research that support the foundation's cause. The tax except foundation can't directly lobby but it can fund research that will have a political impact. Charitable foundations should have a finite number of years to do their work.

chii 4y ago
> I can setup a foundation whose goal is to fund an ugly aspect of society. and why do you get to claim such an aspect is "ugly"? If society, as a whole (or majority) decides such an aspect is ugly, then they can put a law in to outlaw it. The problem isn't at this level of non-profit orgs - the problem is at the civil participation. most people don't participate (not even vote). So those who do get more say, by relative participation rates.
- akudha 4y ago
  If society, as a whole (or majority) decides such an aspect is ugly, then they can put a law in to outlaw it. It is good in theory, but does it work in practice though? For example, majority of the country supports $15 minimum wage, access to abortion, maternity leave etc. Doesn't mean any of this is happening. There are so many "think tanks" and non-profits whose sole job is to advocate shitty ideas of their ultra rich patrons. A small minority with huge resources can consistently do stuff that the rest of us can only dream of. Even if civil participation is good, a well funded foundation can twist and turn the narrative to their advantage and confuse the voters.
  - uvnq 4y ago
    What makes you think the majority supports this?
    - 4y ago

somethoughts 4y ago

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 hugely beneficial for certain types of wealthy individuals. Often times wealthy people enjoy being on these lists as it helps their business, PR, etc. in addition to recognition. I think it would lead to healthier discourse as the tax contributor would be effectively be saying - of all the philanthropic causes I could support, I am purposely choosing to give up that 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.

bshoemaker 4y ago
I have always thought this. The fundamental way this is discussed today (taxation as a punitive measure) rather than celebrating the contribution to society titans of industry make when they pay their taxes.
- riffraff 4y ago
  I do not think that would matter as much as you think. As an anecdote, I'd invite you to consider Silvio Berlusconi, which at various points in times was both the richest man and the top tax payer in Italy (and amongst the top in Europe), and a leading politician for 20 years. He highlighted his tax contributions often, as an attempt to show that he was actually bringing a lot of value to the State, but still ran on a platform of "taxes are evil".
  - CryptoPunk 4y ago
    >>but still ran on a platform of "taxes are evil". One can have a morally consistent world view that holds that voluntarily submitting oneself to the state's tax obligations to be a moral good, comparable to donating to the state, while relying on the state's apparatus of violence (the courts, police and prisons which compel compliance with state edicts) to tax the private income of people at large is an evil.

jagtesh 4y ago

Skimmed through. Here’s a thought: What’s the alternative to philanthropy? If the answer is “democracy“, what does it mean in this context? To me, that means an elected body that decides through representation what is the best use of funds. It does so with no direct oversight, or “unacceptable paternalism”. Sounds an awful lot like a government, doesn’t it? How does a government raise funds? Through taxes (simplified view for the sake of argument. Ignore printing money and selling treasury bonds for a moment). But this is how we function already. So in lieu of philanthropy, can we create a new class of voluntary tax? Or raise taxes on high income? Considering that philanthropy is a purely voluntary act - I think forcing anyone is against that spirit and a voluntary tax, or volunteering funding of govt projects could be the solution. Having said that, I fail to see how this will not also get politicized and lead to greater influence for the donors. I’m not sure if there’s a way to accomplish that while still keeping things voluntary, in the spirit of philanthropy.

asdff 4y ago
If you want to voluntarily engage in a 'public' philanthropy ran by the government, you can just buy a government bond.
- s1artibartfast 4y ago
  Alternatively, the fed and every state accepts donations. The number of people that actively donate to the government is quite small while the number that advocate for higher tax rate on others is quite High. Meanwhile, the state of California just celebrated a record tax year collecting a hundred billion dollars (30%) over the budget, and is struggling to find programs to squander it on.
  - corrral 4y ago
    > The number of people that actively donate to the government is quite small while the number that advocate for higher tax rate on others is quite High. So? It's reasonable to advocate higher taxes for all while not harming oneself for much more limited public benefit in the meantime. This often gets trotted out as a "gotcha", but it's not.

christkv 4y ago

In some cases yes. When we dump free cloths and food in countries destroying local economies the good it does is a net negative creating dependency on donations and limiting local development. Why buy from local farms or cloth manufactures when it’s free.

Proven 4y ago

[dead]

pw 4y ago

I’m not sure how the title got changed. But “Much philanthropy is a routinized exchange between salaried bureaucrats” is the caption on the header image not the actual title.

Teever 4y ago
I would imagine that Dang changed it because of the tendency of articles with baiting questions for headlines tend to result in people skipping reading over the article and going right to answering the baiting question.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

habosa 4y ago

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 almost 3.5x force multiplication. Also I promise it will feel good, and if you choose a local organization that doesn’t have mega donors (not that the big ones are all bad) they will truly notice your help.

krageon 4y ago
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 to death.
- nivenkos 4y ago
  Since the choice is often restricted for these options, I usually choose Doctors Without Borders since at least they're actually out there doing stuff on the ground. Otherwise the FSFE when it's an option in Europe since their Public Money, Public Code campaign is great.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- kortilla 4y ago
  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.
  - 4y ago

krzysiek 4y ago

> In the contemporary world, philanthropy is distinctively American. We give about four hundred and seventy billion dollars a year—more if you count donations of time, physical labor, and material. America’s total is ahead of any other country’s, even as a percentage of G.D.P. Well, this is just not true. Americans give 2.1% of GDP to charity [1] while the whole world gives just under 3% [2]. Also when you take a look at a comparison between countries [3] you can see that the US is far behind (percentage-wise, not rank-wise) countries like Netherlands (14%) or Switzerland (13.3%) 1. https://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=content.view&cpid=42 https://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=content.view&... 2. https://www.privatebank.citibank.com/newcpb-media/media/documents/insights/Philanthropy-and-global-economy.pdf https://www.privatebank.citibank.com/newcpb-media/media/docu... 3. https://www.axios.com/2019/11/30/most-charitable-countries-world https://www.axios.com/2019/11/30/most-charitable-countries-w...

paisawalla 4y ago
I suspect this accounts for the discrepancy in their accounting > more if you count donations of time, physical labor and material
benpbenp 4y ago
Your global figure includes both donations and value of time donated ([2], pg.8) Your US figure ([1]) doesn't say anything about value of time donated so I'd assume it is not included. Finally, the metric where Netherlands and Switzerland come out on top in [3] is in size of philanthropic assets vs GDP. This is noteworthy for sure but is a an entirely different thing than amount of yearly donations.
- krzysiek 4y ago
  You're totally right about donations + value of time. Thank you for pointing that out. It's hard to tell if these numbers can be compared. Also [4] paints a very different picture (although it's for 2016). I think that philanthropic assets should correlate to donations, but you're right also here the numbers from this source cannot be compared to the numbers I mentioned before. [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_charitable_donation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_charitabl...

xg15 4y ago

> 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...

beefield 4y ago

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.

verisimi 4y ago
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.
concordDance 4y ago
Subsidize things with positive externalities (e.g. territorial defence) and tax things with negative ones (e.g. industrial processes that pollute the air). In this case the donor gets his entertainment and good feelings and as a positive externality a child doesn't get malaria.

jum1p 4y ago

"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-working-class/ch13.htm https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/condition-w...

ccbccccbbcccbb 4y ago

In the best traditions of newspeak, the term 'philanthropy' doesn't specify the exact beneficiaries of the 'love' being addressed just like the phrase 'eradication of poverty' doesn't specify the exact means of said eradication.

spicyusername 4y ago

> Much philanthropy is a routinized exchange between salaried bureaucrats ...And much isn't...

ZeroGravitas 4y ago
Weirdly, though it sounds negative out of context, this line in the article is trying to portray this as a good thing, in comparison to some rich guy who lives elsewhere ruining your local school system for no good reason.

ZeroGravitas 4y ago

Another only mildly disguised attack on democracy. > If you’re used to thinking that our democratic system is in bad shape, that can sound jarring. But she’s working in the tradition of what philosophers call “ideal theory”; the aim is to sketch out what a good system would be, assuming that everyone fully complied with its rules. I'm used to thinking that democracy is in poor shape because rich and powerful people prevent it from spreading further. Which seems appropriate for this topic. But instead of diving into that, this author seems to take as a fairly key element of their argument that people getting stupid rich and then doing government type stuff without democratic oversight is good because the obvious alternative, democratic governance is fundamentally broken. I'll check out the book by Emma Saunders-Hastings, “Private Virtues, Public Vices: Philanthropy and Democratic Equality” as its arguments sound pretty sensible.

itronitron 4y ago
A good system needs to be resilient to people in power (the rule enforcers or sub-rule makers) not complying with the rules.
- throwaway2048 4y ago
  Governments aren't the only people in power in modern America, billionaire (philanthropist or otherwise) hold as much or more power than any politician.
gruez 4y ago
>this author seems to take as a fairly key element of their argument that people getting stupid rich and then doing government type stuff without democratic oversight is good [...] Which part is bad? The "government type stuff" or the "without democratic oversight"? I agree that billionaires fielding their own armies/police forces would be pretty bad, but what's wrong with funding homeless shelters or schools? If I decide to volunteer at a soup kitchen, am I also "doing government type stuff without democratic oversight"?
- kodah 4y ago

throwaway14356 4y ago

i imagine it would be possible to annonimize donations via a 3rd party and limit the peaks by spreading them out over time. Like a max increase in monthly budget. But im not sure how that would negatively affect budgeting

dredmorbius 4y ago

For an excellent exploration of many of the contradictions and dark sides of philanthropy, I strongly recommend the podcast Tiny Spark, by Amy Costello. I've submitted a few episodes to HN in the past (with little pick-up). The issue of donor-induced bias and misdirection is a frequent one. Unfortunately, both the podcast and its host, Amy Costello, seem to have gone dark as of this past December. I've written the organisation, the NonProfit Quarterly, several times, and made inquiries elsewhere, but have received no word on what's going on. The back-catalogue remains available and excellent however. https://nonprofitquarterly.org/tiny-spark/ https://nonprofitquarterly.org/tiny-spark/ https://nitter.kavin.rocks/tinyspark_org https://nitter.kavin.rocks/tinyspark_org https://toot.cat/@dredmorbius/108335472990676476 https://toot.cat/@dredmorbius/108335472990676476

mistrial9 4y ago

Amusing to see some of the viewpoints today, dollar-talk about dollars.. as a person with an arts background, I can say that philantropy is obvious -- certain activities that people want to do, cannot be done without some kind of backing.. It is a matter of enabling activity that just could not happen otherwise. Some of the participants were vaguely aware that a "CEO" was being paid somewhere, but what was important was the programs. Who cares about the CEO. It is the other money counters that cared most, not participants. Similarly with "who is running this"/socal dominance.. the other dominance people cared.. so what? On the other hand, the amount of random friction, surprising attitude moments and personal instability with cat-herding dynamics, is notable. Surviving the year is a real concern. Most of the comments here are more aligned with the problems of "Cancer Inc" or "Red Cross" sorts of non-profits, where the mission is real but the massive insititution is decades old and owns a lot of property and equipment, and the executive branch really is in a different world, and people are hired to do boring jobs. Lastly, it is famously true that huge, huge groups are non-profits, where a lot of money changes hands.. and those kinds of setups are closed to your questions, e.g. hospitals and big league sports. ok one more - the "royalty" of those like the Bishop Museum or the Playboy Golf Championship in the 1980s, which both devolved into giant, serious scams where people actually, eventually went to jail. have fun with your non-profits! others did...

dontbenebby 4y ago

Yup. Money isn't the issue with nonprofits (well aside from paying your execs multiples of the max on the GS scale while whining if the low level staffers ask to be paid in line with the GS payscale) The issue is they pay their executives $$$$$ while insisting low level employees take much less than they'd make as government employees while feeling entitled to shape someone's career for the rest of their LIFE if they leave the organization on bad terms. Someone told me "no one gets fired on K street". I did. I moved in with my parents, learned to code, and signed a lease in line with my budget on an apartment in my home county, where yet another nonprofit profited from my knowledge while abusing me. Ex: look at page 7 here: https://cdt.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/CDT-2015-990-FINAL.pdf https://cdt.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/CDT-2015-990-FINA... Then look here: https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/pay-leave/salaries-wages/salary-tables/pdf/2022/DCB.pdf https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/pay-leave/salaries... The entitlement of these entities is astounding. You can only repeat the same confidence tricks so many times before men with guns come into your house like it's Belfast in the 80s or you have civil unrest on an unprecedented scale. I've interviewed places that went on to full on unionize, then applied again after the unionization thinking I could discard my previous extremely disrespectful experiences that were hand waved away, only to have people conduct the process like I'm trying to order a vodka mate at Waterfall[6]. (As in conducting the interview with dripping sarcasm and a tone like they're going to try to put a cigarette out on me, which is not something I want done, though thanks for the hole in my best black t-shirt because I decided to go to the club they didn't write about in LA Times or whatever.) I'm gonna swing back to a research project I'm working on in a moment, but it says everything about thew state of nonprofits all the world over that when back before the 2020 election, I asked my bank for a safe deposit box and a funeral home for a pointer on someone who can draw up a will that it felt like the entire planet lost their minds. (They didn't help with either, since I'm not a boomer, and so I closed my account. Enjoy the bank run and stock crash, you rude little woman!) The insurrection was illegal, and murder is bad, but unfortunately I think it took events like that, or the power failure in Texas[2] or the condo collapse in Florida[3] are what it took to teach folks that pairing no income tax at the state level with hatred of "feds" and sales tax will end with you sitting alone in your McMansion or condo, wondering if it will collapse in on you due to an extreme weather event, or a nuclear strike conducted by a rouge state you insisted via your purposefully terrible voting be handled with kid gloves[4][5]. At the end of the day, the world we are seeing on the news today is the one that folks from generations prior to mine (including GenX) very violently insisted on. I'm on the autistic spectrum -- I know people sometimes say one thing and mean another, so all I can do is try to put enough information out there that people can try to make good decisions under uncertainty. (I wrote the above while pounding espresso that I put on my Capital One[8] card, since based on my interactions with their employees I don't think they care if I pay my bill, and there's no cash in MY wallet.) [1] https://gizmodo.com/google-funded-think-tank-fires-google-critic-1798627458 https://gizmodo.com/google-funded-think-tank-fires-google-cr... [2] https://www.npr.org/2021/02/17/968577281/what-went-wrong-with-the-electric-grid-in-texas https://www.npr.org/2021/02/17/968577281/what-went-wrong-wit... [3] https://www.npr.org/2021/08/26/1031245430/surfside-condo-collapse-corrosion https://www.npr.org/2021/08/26/1031245430/surfside-condo-col... [4] https://www.npr.org/2022/05/21/1100547908/russia-ends-natural-gas-exports-to-finland https://www.npr.org/2022/05/21/1100547908/russia-ends-natura... [5] https://www.npr.org/2022/01/15/1072385995/north-korea-is-testing-hypersonic-weapons-should-the-west-be-worried https://www.npr.org/2022/01/15/1072385995/north-korea-is-tes... [6] http://water-gate.de/de/contact/location/location.html http://water-gate.de/de/contact/location/location.html [7] I changed my SSID, you're not as smart as you think :-) [8] https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2019/08/woman-accused-of-capital-one-hack-had-stolen-data-from-30-companies-authorities-say/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2019/08/woman-accused-of...

adhesive_wombat 4y ago

> “Charity is a cold, grey, loveless thing. If a rich man wants to help the poor, he should pay his taxes gladly, not dole out money at whim.” Clement Attlee, 1920

bstr_ 4y ago

"routinized" is not a word.