The underlying theme here is that people can do good and demonstrate their benevolent nature by (1) first making a lot of money and (2) then donating a percenta

The underlying theme here is that people can do good and demonstrate their benevolent nature by (1) first making a lot of money and (2) then donating a percentage of that money to philanthropic organizations which will act to improve societal conditions. However, a good chunk of POs today are little more than tax shelters and semi-covert influence operations aimed at protecting and consolidating wealth. A better and fairer approach is to have a tax structure that progressively increases relative to one's income, as was the case in 1960s America. Yes, there were many loopholes but they also pushed individuals in certain directions - for example, corporations could avoid high taxation rates by plowing a good chunk of their profits into R & D programs, there was a high estate tax so children of the ultra-wealthy would be encouraged to develop marketable skills rather than just inheriting their wealth, and the tax revenue was used to build robust domestic infrastructure, quality public schools, and a public healthcare system accessible to all - along with services like police, fire, emergency services, national defense, scientific research, etc. Incidentally, modern neoclassical economics is fundamentally flawed, as humans are not rational actors, utility is not energy, externalities are not a valid concept, etc. It has little if any predictive power and serves more as a propagandistic justification of a failing economic system. See: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-economist-has-no-clothes/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-economist-has...