[jagtesh]

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]

If you want to voluntarily engage in a 'public' philanthropy ran by the government, you can just buy a government bond.

[s1artibartfast]

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]

> 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.

[s1artibartfast]

First, I don't understand the logic of more taxes are good, but refusing to donate until others do it too. It seems that the harm is the same either way, and the benefit/$ is the same either way too.

(e.g. I can save a life with a dollar donation today, but wont do it until you agree to do it too so we can save 2 lives with 2 dollars)

In my mind, either you don't actually want to pay, or you don't actually think your donation will bring about public benefit you claim.

Second, I almost never see advocacy for higher taxes for all (including themselves). IMHO it is nearly always a call for higher taxes for some sub-group (usually others), and usually applied in a progressive manner.

[corrral]

> First, I don't understand the logic of more taxes are good, but refusing to donate until others do it too. It seems that the harm is the same either way, and the benefit/$ is the same either way too.

If taxes go up, I receive X harm (lost dollars) and X + [huge number] of dollars go to the government.

If I give X dollars to the government, I receive exactly the same harm, but the benefit to the government is just X.

Identical harm to me either way, but one situation provides far more funding.

Further, voluntary contributions in a competitive society disadvantage the donor vs. everyone who chooses not to donate. Taxes (assuming fair application) remove this factor.

> Second, I almost never see advocacy for higher taxes for all (including themselves). IMHO it is nearly always a call for higher taxes for some sub-group (usually others), and usually applied in a progressive manner.

Progressive taxes are applied to all equally (accounting tricks and such aside—the intention is equal application).

My first dollar of reported income is taxed the same rate as anyone else's from the same sort of source.

So's my millionth dollar—I just don't happen to have that many dollars of annual income, so there's nothing to tax at that rate. Same as how a person with no income at all doesn't pay tax on that first dollar, since they don't have it to begin with.

Also, there are quite a few rich folks around who've consistently advocated for higher taxes on the rich. Buffett's well-known for that stance, but is far from the only one.

[s1artibartfast]

Re 1)...

Im genuinely interested in understanding your first position because I still don't get it.

I would understand advocating for a universal tax increase + huge benefit while donating in the mean time, just not why it isn't worth it to you today.

If you think (X harm)(number of taxpayers) to save (Y lives)(number of taxpayers) is worth it, shouldn't that hold just as true for your personal case of X(1) and Y(1)?

I get that advocating that it would be better if everyone were to do it, just not that it is not worth it individually as well.

The harm you suffer is the same either way, and the benefit you provide to society is the same.

Is there more to it than the competitive disadvantage? Is the competitive disadvantage so great that is not worth giving any any amount to a Noble cause, even $1?

Re 2)....

>Progressive taxes are applied to all equally (accounting tricks and such aside—the intention is equal application).

This is a separate question which I doubt we will be able to see eye to eye on.

It reminds me of the famous Anatole France quote: “The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread.”

A law can be applied universally, but still target specific individuals. A law taxing the top 1% can be applied universally but obviously only harms the 1% and not the 99%.

That is not to say that a tax on the 1% isn't a bad idea, but I do feel it is disingenuous for the 99% to say that we too are equally subject to the law, as if they are equally harmed.

A more honest description would be "we want to harm the 1%, because we think that the majority would stand to benefit"