Matt Zwolinski: About $3.2 million was given to reduce the [US] debt in 2011. … Why so little? One possible explanation is that people are selfish. … But this explanation is difficult to square with the large amounts of money that Americans give to charity each year – over $300 billion in 2009. … I suggest … most people know that there are better and more efficient ways of using their money to help other people than giving it to government.
Giving money to Harvard has a lot to do with status affiliation.
However, I really think this is a separate point. Harvard does not have other means to raise the money it raises via donations. In particular, Harvard can charge more tuition, but it is limited by a commitment toward financial aid, and by a commitment that those funds generally support its education mission and student life. It can apply for more federal grants, but grant money is highly constrained. To expand research programs and build new buildings and other things, it needs donations.
This is different than the government. The government can use tax revenue to pay for all the things it currently uses debt to pay for.
Donations of time and money to political parties is about seizing the distribution of taxes and the police power, nothing like giving money to the government.
I just wrote a check for $60 to NPR as I did last year but oddly enough if I had to pay a subscription of $60/year to listen I would probably not get the subscription. I am weird.
Anyway I have long that they NASA should be funded through donation and I think that it might end up with more money if it were.
Corporations through corporate welfare.Corporations are not people so you are not done there. You need to ask and who benefits from Corporations have more money? Executives, employees, customers and investors?
Gross negligence (which they had been warned about) in Koch Industries pipeline construction and maintenance led to two teenagers getting blown up in 1996.
About secretaries and such. Yes, of course it's about percentages of income, I was hoping this blog was the sort of place where I wouldn't have to explain that.
The amount given as charity to the US debt is so insignificant because despite rumors of stupidity, wealthy folks with that kind of scratch to spare DO have some intelligence.
And, don't wish to harm an addict further, by giving the addict what got it into trouble
Absolutely right. People like to see their money make a difference, which you can't see by giving dollars to the government. (Just look at all the different levels of donation recognized in a Kennedy Center program, or the naming of college buildings, etc.)
I'd also argue that many, many people make "donations" to the government, in that they sell their services to the government for less than fair market value. Forget about the average bureaucrat, but Tim Geithner and the average Peace Corps or Foreign Service type certainly are contributing to the government.
Is it possible that a certain amount of military service should be considered charity donations of time? Or do we totally discount the notion that some percentage of people take some form of a pay cut to work for the military?
More likely, soldiers accept more risk of death than they would for purely financial reasons due to patriotism. I would propose comparing the pay rates of professional mercenary groups to the pay rate of soldiers with similar experience and risk factors.
I'm thinking more about the national guard than the regular military here, but I suppose both apply.
Carl nails it. I'm not saying this "donations to government" comparison is 100% pointless, but it's worth a lot less than some seem to think. Government does a lot of things. Even if everyone were rational consequentialists and donations to charity WERE strictly about improving people's lives, nobody would donate to government. It's hard to know exactly what I'm buying when I donate to Population Services International, but at least I know I'm not buying bombs.
Stop shooting the messenger and get to the issue: why are billionaires paying less taxes than secretaries?
Taxes and tax rates are different things. Buffet paid $7M in taxes last year; that's a lot of secretaries.
Giving money to Harvard has a lot to do with status affiliation.
However, I really think this is a separate point. Harvard does not have other means to raise the money it raises via donations. In particular, Harvard can charge more tuition, but it is limited by a commitment toward financial aid, and by a commitment that those funds generally support its education mission and student life. It can apply for more federal grants, but grant money is highly constrained. To expand research programs and build new buildings and other things, it needs donations.
This is different than the government. The government can use tax revenue to pay for all the things it currently uses debt to pay for.
Hear, hear!
Make NASA a charity so they can be free from congressional meddling.
I don't think so.
Donations of time and money to political parties is about seizing the distribution of taxes and the police power, nothing like giving money to the government.
If NASA didn't have to deal with the micro-management nonsense from Congress, they could get a lot more done with the money they do get.
I just wrote a check for $60 to NPR as I did last year but oddly enough if I had to pay a subscription of $60/year to listen I would probably not get the subscription. I am weird.
Anyway I have long that they NASA should be funded through donation and I think that it might end up with more money if it were.
Corporations through corporate welfare.Corporations are not people so you are not done there. You need to ask and who benefits from Corporations have more money? Executives, employees, customers and investors?
@Jamie_NYC
Yes, obviously Buffett is trying to actually help solve underlying problems instead of just covering up the symptoms with charity.
@Wophogus
You bring up some good points.
@TGGP
Gross negligence (which they had been warned about) in Koch Industries pipeline construction and maintenance led to two teenagers getting blown up in 1996.
About secretaries and such. Yes, of course it's about percentages of income, I was hoping this blog was the sort of place where I wouldn't have to explain that.
The amount given as charity to the US debt is so insignificant because despite rumors of stupidity, wealthy folks with that kind of scratch to spare DO have some intelligence.
And, don't wish to harm an addict further, by giving the addict what got it into trouble
in the first place...
This gets me wondering why people still donate money to Harvard, which has such a large endowment it really doesn't need any more.
Absolutely right. People like to see their money make a difference, which you can't see by giving dollars to the government. (Just look at all the different levels of donation recognized in a Kennedy Center program, or the naming of college buildings, etc.)
I'd also argue that many, many people make "donations" to the government, in that they sell their services to the government for less than fair market value. Forget about the average bureaucrat, but Tim Geithner and the average Peace Corps or Foreign Service type certainly are contributing to the government.
Is it possible that a certain amount of military service should be considered charity donations of time? Or do we totally discount the notion that some percentage of people take some form of a pay cut to work for the military?
More likely, soldiers accept more risk of death than they would for purely financial reasons due to patriotism. I would propose comparing the pay rates of professional mercenary groups to the pay rate of soldiers with similar experience and risk factors.
I'm thinking more about the national guard than the regular military here, but I suppose both apply.
The veil of ignorance is I think a laughable concept once one really internalizes that values of different (even human!) minds differ.
His whole "theory of justice" more or less collapses after one takes that pillar away.
Clearly you should cheat as much as possible on your taxes and give the profit to charity.
Carl nails it. I'm not saying this "donations to government" comparison is 100% pointless, but it's worth a lot less than some seem to think. Government does a lot of things. Even if everyone were rational consequentialists and donations to charity WERE strictly about improving people's lives, nobody would donate to government. It's hard to know exactly what I'm buying when I donate to Population Services International, but at least I know I'm not buying bombs.