3 ms·

> I get what you’re saying. But, a 10% donation is significant regardless of your income level. This is simply untrue. 10% of a $20K income is the difference

> I get what you’re saying. But, a 10% donation is significant regardless of your income level. This is simply untrue. 10% of a $20K income is the difference between your baby having healthcare or not. 10% of a $1 billion income has zero influence on your lifestyle. The value of money is nonlinear. And furthermore most religions (in the US) position the percentages as pretax, so wealthy people actually pay rather less in percentage tithing than poor people do. If religions wanted people to donate to the degree they were capable, the percentage function would be exponential. If you make $20K you donate $200. If you make $1 billion you donate $950 million.

eadmund 3y ago
> 10% of a $1 billion income has zero influence on your lifestyle. That seems obviously untrue: $100 million could hire a thousand employees at $100,000/year (I am ignoring payroll taxes and benefits). Hiring that many additional people to do one’s bidding would have a noticeable influence on one’s lifestyle, and losing that many would as well. Hey, if I had $1 billion a year I would have teams of artisans, craftsmen, authors, poets, tailors and the like at my beck and call. My mansion would be a work of art. My parties would be experiences. I’d build a cathedral. … there’s probably a reason that I don’t make a billion a year!
tcbawo 3y ago
I agree that the utility of money is nonlinear. However, donating $100 million of $1 billion income seems pretty not insignificant to me. Like, it’s significant enough that they’d probably want to make sure it’s spent wisely. Also, I don’t imagine many people with that kind of income will see it consistently. Debating the significance of 10% seems philosophical and academic. Talking a billionaire out of donating $100 million because it’s not enough would be counterproductive.

eadmund 3y ago

> 10% of a $1 billion income has zero influence on your lifestyle. That seems obviously untrue: $100 million could hire a thousand employees at $100,000/year (I am ignoring payroll taxes and benefits). Hiring that many additional people to do one’s bidding would have a noticeable influence on one’s lifestyle, and losing that many would as well. Hey, if I had $1 billion a year I would have teams of artisans, craftsmen, authors, poets, tailors and the like at my beck and call. My mansion would be a work of art. My parties would be experiences. I’d build a cathedral. … there’s probably a reason that I don’t make a billion a year!

tcbawo 3y ago

I agree that the utility of money is nonlinear. However, donating $100 million of $1 billion income seems pretty not insignificant to me. Like, it’s significant enough that they’d probably want to make sure it’s spent wisely. Also, I don’t imagine many people with that kind of income will see it consistently. Debating the significance of 10% seems philosophical and academic. Talking a billionaire out of donating $100 million because it’s not enough would be counterproductive.