[ryandrake]

To me, the key downside of philanthropy is the "without democratic oversight" part. It's all fine when the billionaires are funding homeless shelters or schools: things everyone can agree are a public good. We are extremely lucky that guys like Bill Gates suddenly got a soft spot for fighting malaria after amassing their fortunes. But nothing exists to stop these billionaires from donating to causes against the public good.

That's the problem. The public should define what "public good" means, not rich people. As inefficient as taxes/government is, at least the voters are theoretically in the driver's seat, and get to at least indirectly define public good through elected representatives. With philanthropy, we're simply letting a single wealthy demographic decide "this is public good, trust me bro", and the public can't vote out rich people if they disagree.

[s1artibartfast]

But that's not true. The people and the democratically-elected government are the ones that Define what qualifies as a charity.

We have said through our Democratic process that these are good things.

https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/charitable-organiz...

[rhn_mk1]

That's an impediment, yes, but it's not a barrier. There's nothing preventing billionaires from putting their money into causes which are not charitable. There's only a disincentive in the form of lowered efficiency.

[s1artibartfast]

Sure, but now you are arguing that the rich shouldn't be able to spend money as they choose, and not against deductible philanthropy.

That is a different beast entirely.

[ZeroGravitas]

You could make the same argument for tax loopholes, in fact they may actually just be the same thing in many cases.

[s1artibartfast]

How do you define loophole. Is is the code that explicitly gives a tax credit for children and dependence a tax loophole?

I don't think that you can make a coherent argument that a law operating as intended is considered a loophole.