[pyrelight]

She's able to do all this and still live comfortably and live her dreams. I wonder why more wealthy don't do things like this. It seems most just write a check to Charity X for the tax break and the ego boost.

The things Dolly does seem to lend themselves to legacy, and what could a rich man/woman want more than their name immortalized in a social program that helps people.

[LocalH]

Dolly Parton embodies everything good about the Southern US, in an age where there's not really much in this area that gets the public eye for being a good, wholesome thing. I have a lot of respect for her, quite honestly in my mind she's up there with people like Fred Rogers and Bob Ross.

[celticninja]

Dolly Parton embodies everything good about people.

[avidphantasm]

She grew up very poor. I suspect many wealthy people didn’t. Also, she made her money working for a living, not through financial BS.

[082349872349872]

see Coat of Many Colors

[pmorici]

Not to detract anything from her contribution but she isn’t funding the whole thing. The way it works is a local nonprofit for a geographic area partners with the Imagination library and funds them to offer the program in that area.

Their website explains how you can become a partner for your area and the costs involved.

In some places it is government funded. The program in Baltimore City for example appears to be largely funded by Maryland State government via a yearly grant to a nonprofit.

https://imaginationlibrary.com/usa/

https://goccp.maryland.gov/the-governors-young-readers-progr...

[pbj1968]

$2.20 per child, per month. That’s the partnership contribution. Please reconsider where you place your time and outrage.

[pmorici]

Zero outrage on my part. Just pointing out that the op’s view of how this works doesn’t jive with reality. There are a lot of people and governments putting money into this to make it work at the scale and scope that it does.

[pbj1968]

Jibe

[artificialLimbs]

Stating facts != outrage.

[radec]

outrage?

[peterleiser]

A big motivation was that her father was illiterate. We live in Tennessee and this program is amazing. Dolly Parton is great to Tennessee and her reputation here is stellar.

[glass_of_water]

If you find the right organization that uses the funds effectively, what's with donating your wealth as opposed to creating your own charitable organization? Also, I'm sure the tax deduction for donations is exploited when the receiving organization is non-profit in name only, but if the receiving organization really is an effective charity, what's wrong with the donor getting a tax break?

Or is the claim not that one approach is more effective than other in terms of positive impact, but that the wealthy, for their own sake, would be better off founding their own organizations?

[massysett]

This is Warren Buffet’s approach. He figured Bill Gates is better at giving away money than he ever would be, so he simply gives his money to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

[mc32]

Are there no profit charity organization where everyone is a volunteer and no one draws a salary?

Lots of these orgs often seem like they exist to maintain the organization than benefit their cause.

[prroyston]

I am a nonprofit CEO who’s worked in community, sport, educational and health charities.

Organizations and causes require people who work full time to help organize the charitable work. It is very difficult to find people to volunteer at this level and typically if you do, they are independently wealthy. Retired people can do more but typically they do not want to give that much time and have other things they want to do.

4 hrs a week which is a typical volunteer shift at our hospital does not lend itself to pulling all the details together.

Good people deserve to get paid to do good work. Just like in tech, you get what you pay for. And typically a nonprofit worker puts extra hours and time in as does their family members in support of the cause.

[mc32]

I understand the need for professionals, but what grates me is seeing the leaders of these organizations renting expensive venues to conduct some of their activities, sometimes display expensive art and so on. As if they need to impress their donors. No, donors already believe in the cause, they don't have to be plied, taken to expensive restaurants, served luxurious food, etc. in order to get their commitments. They should believe in the mission, run frugally and most of all divert the majority of the money to the cause.

I often hear, well, if you don't pay them top salary you are not going to attract people from private enterprise. I don't think you want people whose main motivation to contribute is money.

[pyrelight]

Yeah, it's too late to shift it, but from everything I've seen when researching on Charity Navigator, leadership at non profits is viewed similarly as C-suite with regard to salary. I suspect it's probably because to be effective, it's much easier to just network at the level that C-suite professionals would, rather than the grassroots approach that requires raw labor, outreach, etc.

It's probably easier to get that guy you know who is high-up at Kroger to get involved in your charity in a mutually-beneficial way.

Or maybe I'm just really really over the edge jaded and cynical. It's probably that.

[marniewebb]

This.

[harimau777]

Good point. Even from a purely selfish perspective, I would think that being universally loved would have more utility than a few more millions in the bank.

[melling]

“I wonder why more wealthy don't do things…”

I wonder why so many people want the wealthy to do more things to make the world a better place when the United States has a GDP of $23 trillion dollars.

Everyone wants to pay little taxes, have a cheap gallon of gas, and tax the rich to solve our problems, while kicking the can as far down the road as possible.

How many problems could have been solved with $32 trillion

https://www.forbes.com/sites/mikepatton/2023/04/25/the-natio...

[harimau777]

Can you explain what you are advocating?

It's not clear to me what connection you are making between America's GDP and wanting the wealthy to do more. The wealthy capture the largest portion of the GDP, so America's high GDP would seem to support the idea that the wealthy can do more.

It seems like you are criticizing tax rates but then you talk about how much can be done with the money that makes up the national debt. Are you advocating more or less government spending? Are you advocating more or less taxes?

[melling]

No, if you can’t figure it out then you deserve the world that you get. Saying rich people should solve the problems is the lazy answer.

US consumer spending is 70% of GDP.

[blep_]

You are not obligated to explain yourself, but you also don't get to complain when nobody knows what you're talking about.

[IntelMiner]

Saying "you're stupid and don't deserve an answer" is childish and trite. Be better

[anonymouskimmer]

The comment you're responding too was wondering why more wealthy people aren't building well-regarded social legacies. Not why rich people weren't solving society's issues.

> How many problems could have been solved with $32 trillion

How many problems were solved with that $32 trillion?

To nitpick, the current US GDP estimate is $26.49 trillion. https://www.bea.gov/news/2023/gross-domestic-product-second-...

In general, I agree with your gist. Hagiographies turn me off, particularly in a republic of citizens (not Great Men).

[croes]

What do you think why the rich are so rich? How much of the tax money lands in their pockets because they don't pay their employees good enough?