I made some remarks about philanthropy on an earlier post. The gist of those was something like: Philanthropy is another way for rich people to support their personal beliefs and ambitions, and look good while doing it. I am unimpressed with corporate philanthropy as well, because corporations want economic success and are not ethically averse to disingenuous or unethical ways of going about getting it. How 'things, in the broadest sense of the term, hang together, in the broadest sense of the term' is not so easy to determine when there is a lot of money and prestige at stake. It all gets pretty 'fuzzy'...
但是，正如卢·多布斯曾经说过的那样，我们确实拥有金钱所能买到的最好的政府。这确实说明了一些事情…这个东西到底是什么是不确定的。

我有另一种想法(不，不是另一种事实——那是别人的主张;否认;反驳或只是嘲笑…)。问题是:慈善对民主有害吗?也许这个问题应该反过来问?民主，无论它可以或应该是什么，都不需要慈善家或他们的慷慨，以便公平地、根据某些构成和制度的事实和规则运作。如果我们看看支持政治利益的竞选捐款和其他种类的财政援助，民主理想和原则的拟人呈现出另一种不那么理想主义的色彩:我在2019年4月12日的评论中提到的一些东西。如果你愿意，可以这样想:更多基于金钱转手而不是一人一票的民主，很难与我们祖先所设想的民主相一致。或者，用多布斯先生的话说:钱能买到的最好的政府，并不是最好的政府，这句话现在已经不再具有历史意义了。我知道这与目前普遍接受的规范背道而驰。 But, there are only so many ways of looking at this. I'm just calling it the way it looks. No matter how one looks at it, philanthropy is getting a bad rap, and THIS democracy does not give a flip...

I completely agree, as I usually do, with HGN. And when I don't agree, he prompts me to re-evaluate my own positions...this is called "doing philosophy." Here is a post I ran on philanthropy recently that still applies to this discussion.

Charitable Contributions

Walking with a friend the other day, we came upon graffiti on a wall: “Tax the Rich.” My friend said “amen.” I said “It’s not about how much to tax, it’s about what the taxes are going to be used for.” (Of course in a real democracy the people would probably have the right not just to vote on the tax rate, but to vote on government spending too. Congress seems paralyzed to handle these matters anyway.)
假设我是收入较高的中产阶级。我已经把我收入的70%交了税(联邦和州收入、社会保障、销售、财产、消费税、过路费、执照和许可证、公用事业税等)。我已经交了很多税了。我们是世界上(第二)富有的国家;浪费在战争、帝国主义、霸权主义、贪污以及重复联邦和州政府机构上的钱，能支付我们真正需要的东西吗?比如全民医保、免费教育和日托、保障国民收入(免税7.5万美元)和基础设施升级?(个人年收入也应该有100万美元的上限，并有义务将个人年收入超过这一上限的部分传递给公司或家族的每一位成员，且始终不得超过100万美元。)
Charitable contributions? The government in theory gives a deduction for contributions for services and support that it should ideally provide. But the elaborate system set up to allow an organization to authorize the deductibility promotes huge salaries and perks for the organizers, and all kinds of bullshit that actually keeps significant funds from reaching the intended goals. US taxpayers should get a tax deduction for charitable giving to individuals in need that are not IRS designated charities. Do you know that the IRS trusts us to pay business expenses of $25 or less without the necessity for a receipt? Why not the same for charitable giving to people in need who are not 501c3’s? Or why not trust us for giving of $100 or less? Or $1000? I meet people, working people, all the time who are so broke that they can’t take care of basics. I help them out; but even though I am doing something I think any decent government would do for them, I cannot claim a tax deduction for my contribution. The system is set up to benefit the “charitable” organization, not the purported recipients of the donations. Try to find a public record of the salaries and perks of a charitable institution.
政府给那些想要“拯救美洲狮”的纳税人减税(现在他们被“拯救”到可以在城市购物中心吃婴儿了?)，但我不能因为帮助我的朋友做必要的手术而得到减税。

: Once one puts money in a charitable foundation, there is a tax write off and the money no longer belongs to the person that set up the foundation. The money has to be given to valid charitable organizations. Trump treated his “charitable foundation” as his own personal slush fund. How widespread is such abuse where a person has a substantial tax deduction and then uses the money as his/her own?

反思,没有. .正如古尔德所言，它们是不重叠的教权。有人可能会说，民主促进了慈善事业。这是不对的。这个概念是没有效用的。或者，有些人可能会争论对方。但同样的消极也会出现。有钱的人可以做任何他们想做的事。做不到的人做不到。为什么，然后问这个问题? Just asking...Of course, in Gould's time, pragmatism meant something more than now.. Circles within wheels... Read Pollan's this is your mind,,,' skipped the section on caffeine. AOK.

....contrariwise, is democracy bad for philanthropy? It might be, except for the fact that capitalism does not wish any harm to befall it'$ cash cows., therefore, those who can afford to be philanthropic are given all sorts of tax breaks and incentives to encourage such largess. Even in countries, not pre-disposed towards capitalism as we know it, the crazy rich are given leeway. No, money talks and only the foolish in any stripe of governance are idiotic (or ignorant) enough to mess with that. Is there philanthropy among the wealthy under totalitarian regimes? You bet there is! And, they do not much mind lending (bad choice of word) monetary support to 'the party'. In return, they are left alone to make as much money as possible.

米鲁盖:我想你了。当史密斯说他想念我时，我不知道该回答谁。
Whether you are who I think you are is unimportant. Late on, I learned what mirugai meant.
Bye, for now...
Neuman.

First off, I didn't realize the gilded age history here, the impact of Anne-Robert Turgot, the liturgical and antidosis practice in Ancient Greece, or the effect of the Waqf on our everyday lives. Reich is not an expert of history, philosophy, or encyclopedist of philanthropy but clearly a scholar and easy-to-follow writer. The show and book have directed my thought to all these and now to our current political practice.

Though we all give percentage-wise similar amounts to charity, we don't share equally or with the same expectations. The interests of lower-class donations are piecemeal, and in general, less accounted for (or accredited), consist of voluntarism, and are aimed more at individuals and local communities. Wealthy interests are tax-wise, broader in scope, substantial, and tailored to prestige. It galls me to have wealthy donors given head of state status while at the same time I can not help but think my exasperation is a character flaw given the good these foundations and donations do. Reich gives me reasons to feel better about my intuitions.

少数做公共慈善事业的富人很好地隐藏了大多数做慈善的捐赠者，他们用一种下流的、反社会的、有时过时的、往往是夸大的焦点来做慈善。我将支持赖希几乎所有的改革想法，并提供这些已经在一些地区和州政府使用的想法。

We should have a flat 2% tax for every taxpayer who is sufficiently able to afford it (i.e., no one in poverty or near poverty status.) That money should be dedicated to a 501c3 or like organization of their choice as filed on their tax return. This could be a foundation or a church that would spend out the money in a defined window with accountability and return on past investment documented. This could be similar to the optional political donations that taxpayers already are offered.

学校基金会应该有一个公平的声明，有真实的结果和记录的投资回报，使学生有机会毕业后在邻近的不太富裕的地区。许多社区已经这样做了，但可以在区域内和在当地做得一样好。

Finally, I would propose a wealth or income tax globally similar to what Thomas Piketty has suggested. If one doesn't live on income - their wealth should be taxed. Not because it is a good idea, but rather because inequity is pretty much the problem, and solutions in any one state will have repercussions in others.

None of my ideas rise above that of Reich, of/to whom I am now aware and indebted.

回顾关于这个话题的评论，主要是我自己的评论，我得出了一个结论。或两个。1.在对核心问题发表看法之前，我没有像我可能认为的那样好好思考。的起源,你看。实际上，慈善事业依赖于资本主义。在生活富足的社会和经济体中，贫困人口相对较少。他们只是缺乏必要的资源和意愿来促成和支持慈善工作。2.这是否意味着强大、健全的资本主义对慈善事业至关重要? I heartily believe so and THAT belief is not propositional, near as I can tell. 3. Is there a mutual hunger from capitalism for philanthropy? I think it must be so. The flow of money and the health of economic wealth depends heavily on the prosperity of that 1%. 4. When the 1% does well, they feel good about tax write-offs. Those feelings contribute to philanthropic acts.: reduction of tax burdens are a strong incentive to give more to those who have less. So, there is, if one will, a mutual or saphrophytic benefit exchanged herewith. My high school biology/botany lies far behind this moment. Anyway, that is my reassessment, after further thought.

米鲁盖:如果可以的话，请告诉我们。游戏正在进行中福尔摩斯和华生不耐烦了。我的生日快到了。你的一句话或几句话就是一份礼物……

My sources in another country tell me troubling news. Much of the civil unrest there and agitation going with it is receiving funding from anonymous donors. This appears to be a sort of philanthropy, taken to an extreme. If we follow the money, it seems one objective could be government disruption
Drawing a further conclusion, one might say this looks like government overthrow...shooting an earlier assessment in the foot, and finding philanthropy culpable. Did this apparent snow-boulder begin with our own debacle a year ago? It seems naive to dismiss it as coincidence or resultant from the pandemic only. Keep your ears on and eyes open. Good night, and good luck.