This discussion largely revolves around the reliability and effectiveness of charitable funding for public needs, particularly in contrast to traditional taxation and government funding. Several interconnected themes emerge:
The Unreliability of Charitable Funding
A central concern is that charitable funding is inherently less reliable for sustained needs compared to government funding through taxation. This is attributed to the voluntary nature of charity and its susceptibility to shifts in donor interests, political winds, or individual whims.
- "Charity is essentially voluntary. So, in terms of persistence to need, it's highly variable. Some problems demand commitment which charities cannot commit to." - ggm
- This unreliability is exacerbated when funding shifts from governmental bodies to the charitable sector due to political changes: "The reason for the cessation in funding is because of recent political changes. Incidentally those recent political changes also led to a cessation in government charitable donations. I don't think we can claim that either is strictly more reliable than the other." - nofriend
The Influence of Politics and Personal Motives on Charitable Giving
The discussion highlights how personal beliefs, political ideologies, and even perceived lack of conviction from donors can dictate the flow of charitable funds. This can lead to funding being withdrawn or redirected based on factors unrelated to the actual need.
- JumpCrisscross directly attributes the cessation of funding to the individuals involved, stating: "The reason is Zuckerberg and Chan have no backbone. These are individuals who command the resources of small nations. Yet their insecurities win out every time, rendering them powerless to take a stand on anything and instead wander to the beats of others’ drums."
- Another perspective suggests the motives might be less about genuine altruism and more about public relations: "Or more plausibly they never cared and it was just PR all along." - lasc4r
- The commenter soulofmischief references a past incident to characterize Zuckerberg negatively: "Zuckerberg will never outrun his "they 'trust me'. dumb fucks" chat log. He's a terrible person."
- ggm draws a philosophical divide, linking political leanings to charitable motivations: "I tend to think right wing people who believe in personal responsibility and low taxes favour charity because it gives them discretion, to give or not, as a function of how they feel about the recipient, and left wing people who believe in the state as a construct reflecting popular will believe in state functions to implement the burdens individuals cannot manage for themselves." The commenter then provides an example of ideological influence on funding decisions: "my very good friends who donate highly tend to be right wing and tend to make moralising statements about diabetes being a function of a lack of personal self control and so do not fund interventions to prevent diabetes in the working poor because 'they lack self control' and also chose not to fund womens reproductive rights on similar grounds 'chastity is its own reward' -Bill and Melinda Gates were exceptional in ignoring the fundamentalist christian lobby which came into the room in the Reagan 'just say no' years, and funded contraception and abortion in Africa regardless."
Questions of Efficiency and "Effective Altruism"
There's significant debate about whether charitable giving, especially in the form of large philanthropic interventions, is truly more efficient than government spending or direct community support. The concept of "effective altruism" is questioned in practice.
- "Is there evidence that this is the right way? Because it seems to be far less efficient than other ways if funding charitable causes directly by a significant margin." - VirusNewbie
- "Likewise, is there evidence for this? Maybe our most 'effective' altruism is in fact to pay taxes in a liberal democracy after all." - analog31
- "Painting with a very broad brush, the US is the most charitable country in the world, yet we lag behind many other countries according to various measures of human welfare." - analog31
- "Is it clear the charity approach is more efficient? My sense is many non-profits prioritize fundraising and have the bloat of executives who's main function is to schmooze donors." - britch
- "I'm sure there are good nonprofits/charities. And there's definitely inefficient public offices that are mainly interested in politics. My point is 'seems less efficient' is kind of weak ground to be asking others for evidence" - britch
Abuses and Loopholes in Charitable Structures
Commenters point out that the current system of charitable giving is susceptible to abuse, including tax loopholes and a lack of true arm's-length transactions, which can lead to funds being diverted or controlled by individuals while receiving tax benefits.
- "The US 'charity' to the UN became highly qualified as a function of both political distance from the UN goals, and regrettable lapses in probity inside the UN, the kind of problem which crops up anywhere and everywhere. Time and place meant they collided, and the US stopped funding the UN because of
and instead let the charity sector pick up the burden, which meant right wing christian fundamentalism entered the room." - ggm - "Charity is essentially voluntary... Charity incurs oversight burdens. The UK has a long story about failures in charity, the charity commissioner has had to intercede many times. It would be wrong to assume there are no oversight costs, the thing is that to the charity they may look like externalities. They have to be borne, the state bears the cost." - ggm
- "Charities are abused. Churches for instance. Why do churches qualify for charitable status, when they (in most economies where they are or have been) are established entities with massive landholdings and wealth?" - ggm
- "Charity seems fine but we should definitly get rid of the tax loopholes. That would take much of the corruption out of it. These donor advised funds now allow someone to maintain full control of their money while the IRS considers it 'donated' it for a major tax write-offs." - aeternum
- "Their social funding was just creative accounting that moved money so it couldn't be taxed, but still gave them full control and then never did deliver anything." - downrightmike
- "That or reform charitable giving so that it truly is an arm's length transaction. No preferential tax treatment for payments to charities one controls." - bickfordb
Skepticism Towards Technocratic "Solutions" in Education
The discussion touches on a specific example of charitable funding in education that raises concerns about the effectiveness and appropriateness of technologically driven interventions, especially when paired with a lack of basic structure.
- The quote about "speech pedometers" designed to analyze children's speech patterns is met with incredulity: "What the heck? Education is hard, and it's surprising how much 'gee whizz' type tech / ideas are out there that supposedly fix things like a magic wand. And in the meantime, no disciplinary rules?" - duxup
The Historical Context of Philanthropy and Tax Incentives
Some commenters bring up the historical interaction between philanthropy, tax policies, and the desire for public recognition.
- "It was part 'decadence', part practical. The tax code in the past was gamified to promote philanthropy (or at least erect buildings with your name on them), rather than simply not paying." - dfxm12
Critiques of Large-Scale Philanthropic Interventions
The effectiveness and transparency of large philanthropic projects are questioned, with historical examples cited where significant funds were allegedly "squandered."
- A reminder of a previous, controversial intervention is provided: "The East Palo Alto project was the billionaire couple’s second major intervention in a city’s education system, after a controversial 2011 gift of $100 million to the Newark public schools. Some experts and community members claimed that the money was largely squandered" - max_
- Jedd recommends a book that critically analyzes "philanthrocapitalism": "A reminder that 'No Such Thing As a Free Gift: The Gates Foundation and the Price of Philanthropy' by Linsey McGoey (2015), is an excellent analysis of philanthrocapitalism. (Spoiler - this book does not provide a ringing endorsement of dubiously acquired wealth being dubiously applied through a commercial / for-profit prism.)" - Jedd