[lmm]

> The article notes that the alternative is the European system of not providing tax-breaks for these organizations--which results in much fewer organizations. It's hard for me to accept that when I think of all the organizations I perceive as doing good in America, but maybe they aren't really doing good and are simply enjoying the good sentiments that come with the words "charity" and "non-profit?"

You've got to ask how much of those sectors' income is going to organizations that are doing good, and how much is not. And remember that taxes are used for the public good, so the bar to be tax exempt should not be merely "is this organization doing good?" but rather "is this organization doing more good per dollar than is done with general taxation?"

[barney54]

Is the government "doing good?" There is some good, but there is a case that non-profits such as the Red Cross, churches, food banks, are more accountable and do more good.

To me non-profits do far more good per dollar than the government does through general taxation. The biggest reason why is that non-profits have a much more defined scope and mission.

[jellicle]

> There is some good, but there is a case that non-profits such as the Red Cross, churches, food banks, are more accountable and do more good.

There isn't any such case, if approached realistically. Government agencies spend trillions of dollars each year on helping the poor, the old, and the disabled in various ways. They do so in ways that are fantastically accountable (compared to the private sector), including but not limited to the fact that basically any document about anything written by anyone working at these agencies can be requested by a member of the public and the government must give them a copy. The executives working at government agencies are paid frugally, their books are audited regularly, and they are subject to dismissal for even minor transgressions.

Total charitable giving in the U.S. is an order of magnitude lower (even assuming that every cent was spent on something good, which is far from the truth), their accountability consists of (at most) a mandatory report every year and nothing else (often not even that), and their executives are now hitting 7-figure salaries.

It's not even close.

[lmm]

> Is the government "doing good?" There is some good, but there is a case that non-profits such as the Red Cross, churches, food banks, are more accountable and do more good.

I'd say they're less accountable. There's no democratic oversight, FOIA doesn't apply to them, journalists have less incentive to go digging for dirt. They have to keep the donations coming, but that's as much a question of PR as of how much good they're actually doing.

I've no doubt there are effective NGOs and wasteful parts of government, but I suspect a large proportion of NGOs (not those on your list perhaps, but the money-weighted average) are less effective.

[countrybama24]

Well they are good at different activities. Charities are good at things that can be done on a small, decentralized scale, like giving away food. Regulating massive industries, correcting the issues in our healthcare system, setting up a program of cash transfers, on the other hand, are all things that often require the scale of the government.

[eli_gottlieb]

I find it very difficult to believe that the Red Cross does more good than Medicare and Medicaid, or that food banks do more good than Food Stamps.

[dignan]

You're comparing an organization with a budget of about $3 billion to one with a budget of over $1 TRILLION. It's a nonsensical comparison.