[jimnotgym]

I have really enjoyed your comments on this thread fsckboy.

> The public likes the idea of philanthropy

I think that may be because very rich donors can afford good PR. Also there are few politicians strong enough to say, "sure x spent 100m on postgrad study of his niche interest, but if the treasury had got it instead it could have spent it on teaching everyone's kids to read and write".

I think a (real) cap on tax deductability would have a interesting consequence. a) the government has more money and better public services. It no longer has to cosy up to a 'philanthropist', helping them look good b) real philanthropists would still donate. However people pursuing dubious interest, like funding niche courses for elite kids at an elite school, would wane. Public stops looking at philanthropy in same way, perhaps

[dahfizz]

> sure x spent 100m on postgrad study of his niche interest, but if the treasury had got it instead it could have spent it on teaching everyone's kids to read and write.

You and I both know that all that money would have gone to defense contactors and hospital administrators if the government had taxed it.

On average, nonprofits provide substantially more public good per dollar than the government does.

[jimnotgym]

This also doesn't have to be true. The same class who are hoarding the wealth are the same class lobbying the government about how to spend tax dollars.