> Donations in general are a topic of public debate, in part, because in many countries they are tax-deductible, which means donations reduce tax obligations for individuals, and tax revenue for government.
Really? Let’s say your top marginal tax rate is 40%. That means when you donate a dollar, you get 40 cents back in taxes. When given the choice between 40 cents going to the government or one dollar going to a billionaire-chosen charity, I’d pick the charity every time.
If you agree with that, then it doesn’t make sense to criticize donations on the basis that they reduce tax revenue. (it may still make sense to change the law regarding deductions, however)
If you disagree with that, I would be interested to hear your reasoning. It seems to me that people like Bill Gates have actually donated a pretty large chunk of their wealth to truly good causes. Would you have preferred 40% of this money go to the government instead and Gates to have kept the rest? Or is the average billionaire donation much less effective than Gates’?
The context here is that these people have publicly made the "Giving Pledge" to reduce their assets by half to improve society, and yet their assets have doubled in a short time. That means they are underperforming based on their own intent, and casts doubt on the selfless virtue component of the Giving Pledge.
Really? Let’s say your top marginal tax rate is 40%. That means when you donate a dollar, you get 40 cents back in taxes. When given the choice between 40 cents going to the government or one dollar going to a billionaire-chosen charity, I’d pick the charity every time.
If you agree with that, then it doesn’t make sense to criticize donations on the basis that they reduce tax revenue. (it may still make sense to change the law regarding deductions, however)
If you disagree with that, I would be interested to hear your reasoning. It seems to me that people like Bill Gates have actually donated a pretty large chunk of their wealth to truly good causes. Would you have preferred 40% of this money go to the government instead and Gates to have kept the rest? Or is the average billionaire donation much less effective than Gates’?