The Philanthropy Trap

Sunday, February 24, 2019
First Aired:
Sunday, June 19, 2016

What Is It

Many of us generally admire people who donate large sums of money to charity. Yet people donate for all sorts of reasons – some selfless, some not so much. Should we consider philanthropy as mere ego expression for the wealthy, or is it genuinely altruistic behavior? If philanthropists are so concerned with having an impact on society, how should we think about "measuring" this impact? Are there better ways than philanthropy to achieve positive social change? John and Ken donate their time to Bruce Sievers from the Haas Center for Public Service at Stanford University.

Listening Notes

Is philanthropy just the rich undemocratically imposing their values on the rest of society? Is the rise of philanthropy just a negative side effect of not having high enough taxes? Why do we, the public, subsidize philanthropy? John and Ken go back and forth on whether philanthropists should be praised or blamed. John suggests that we may want to roll back some of the subsidies and praise given to philanthropists. Ken in turn pushes John to appreciate that interventions in civil society (e.g. philanthropy) may be more efficient that government.

Scholar and philanthropy-expert Bruce Sievers joins the show. Sievers makes the pointed claim that, even in the ideal world, we would still need philanthropy. Sievers points to Michael Walzer’s argument that, even in a goodsocialist社会，会有慈善事业。约翰向西弗斯追问，我们为什么要用适度的税收优惠来补贴慈善家的活动。肯下意识地反对把利他主义的慈善捐赠变成一种自利的、有补贴的活动。

Ken guides the conversation towards the undemocratic nature of philanthropy – whether it’s the rich imposing their values on the rest. Markets hold businesses accountable, and the public holds politicians accountable. Who holds philanthropists accountable? Sievers thinks that there’s a new type of accountability held to philanthropists that’s not majoritarian, instead allowing for pluralism. He refers to stats to defend this pluralism point; there’s a huge diversity of persons donating.

对多元主义的讨论引出了对公民社会及其长期焦点的讨论，使每个人都能清晰地表达他们对善的概念。约翰接着想，为什么政治演讲不能免税，而对各种非营利组织的捐款却可以免税。有人打电话问，为什么慈善家仅仅为了履行他们对社会的义务而得到补贴。肯想知道有多少慈善捐赠是出于自身利益?慈善只是富人的自我安抚吗?

  • Roving Philosophical Report(seek to 6:28): Shuka Kalantari documents the case of an “indie-philanthropist” who diversifies her portfolio to an enormous extent. Moreover, she recognizes a need to undermine the systems of our day and sees her philanthropy as supporting this cause.
  • Sixty Second Philosopher(seek to 45:43): Ian Shoales begins riffing off the history of the word ‘philanthropy,’ which translates from Greek to “the love of humanity.” He discusses the secularization of philanthropy over centuries. He points out the shady origins the wealth of the biggest philanthropists in history.

Transcript

Comments(3)

Harold G. Neuman's picture

Harold G. Neuman

Friday, February 22, 2019 -- 11:25 AM

I commented on this subject

I commented on this subject back in 2016. Anyone still thinking about this matter can see those remarks, if desired. I remain somewhat amused by the 'trap', if that is what it may be called. Being unfamiliar with the rules attached to this practice, I have to ask: do such donations and bequests of moneys entail tax write-offs for magnanimously wealthy contributors? If so, the degree of generosity seems, uh, somewhat muted, don't you think? I mean, tax write-off is a favored ploy of many who would dodge the taxman's scythe, so what else is new, hmmmm? Just asking, you see...

mirugai's picture

mirugai

Sunday, February 24, 2019 -- 12:54 PM

Charitable Contributions

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.)
假设我是收入部门的中上阶层。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一个100万美元的上限(这已经够多了!)，并有义务将个人年收入向下传递给公司或家庭中的每一位成员，总是不超过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.
The government is giving tax deductions to taxpayers who want to “save mountain lions” (now so “saved” that they can eat babies in urban shopping malls?), but I can’t get a tax deduction for helping my friend who can’t afford a necessary surgery.