Let me first state that the following idea bumps hard into the concepts "the devil is in the details" and "who decides". Still if it hasn't been mentioned before, I thought it was worth introducing it in spite of those problems.

If I don't have my facts straight in an important way the mods should just delete the thread.

Presently I believe that when you donate to any legitimate charity you can deduct that amount from the income you pay taxes on. But shouldn't there be some incentive for people to donate to certain charities rather than others? I would think that one charity would be preferred over another if:

1. Its goals are generally considered more important

2. It has a greater need for money

3. It 'rakes' the donations to a lesser degree.

4. The money will more likely result in a breakthrough

There are probably some other good criteria as well. Some might say that preference should be given to charities that do not mainly target people in other countries.

I'm thinking that there could be perhaps some committee of experts that would give charities a rating, perhaps A, B, or C. Where A donations are 100% deductible while B and C are lessor amounts. Maybe in the case of A it could even go up to 110%

(I also think that it is unfair that lower income people have to pay a higher price to donate. I would think that everyone who donates should be able to get a rebate on their donation equal to the highest tax bracket.)

ok sounds good

One one hand, as you already mentioned, it is a potential source of dispute (why is this charity rated higher than that charity). But one the other hand I guess someone has to decide anyway if a charity qualifies as tax deductible in the first place, so they might as well rate them while they're at it.

It's essentially the reverse of "vice taxes", and theoretically fine.

The first sentence is entirely the reason this won't work, though.

How about (1-the percentage the companies pays out to administration/employees) is the deduction rate you get?

On the one hand I sorta like the idea that someone can give away all their money over the minimum to owe taxes (varies based on other deductions) and pay nothing to the government and be in complete control of where that money is spent.

On the other hand I sorta like the idea of charitable donations not being tax deductible at all. Tax rates could be lowered for government revenue to stay the same and people can donate what they want as a real donation. And there's a fair amount of scamming going on in the non-profit world as it is.

Not really fair and quite gameable. Some non-profits do things like hire attorneys to represent poor people. They spend a lot on employees. Other non-profits just hand out money. They don't. You'd end up with non-profits that do nothing but hand out money to other non-profits so they would have low administration costs.

rofl

I cant get past the "who decides?" question.

It's as if DS has never heard of effective altruism.

Yup.


This I like.

The ****?

1) Why would you want to remove incentives to giving? Do you think the recipients of the charity give a **** about how pure the intentions of the giver were?

2) Unless your tax rate is >= 100% it is still a "real donation" and still costs the donor after-tax dollars.

Let's start with the media no longer shilling for the American Red Cross fevery time there's a disaster somewhere and encouraging people to light their money on fire.

No idea if it's still this way, but when I was in the Army the CSM at my first duty station basically ordered everyone to give something to Red Cross through Combined Federal Campaign. It wasn't an actual order but it was understood that we were required to do it or else get plunked during our next at bat. I heard stories from other enlisted people getting similar pressures in their units. Could have been a local thing though idk

I think I've heard it called 'voluntordered'.

Lots of companies do that here with the United Way. There's competition between local companies, and between teams within a company, to see who gives more, and especially who has highest participation rate. If you don't agree to at least some amount of payroll deduction, you get a public shaming for letting your team down and embarrassing your company.

Haha, just googled United Way to see how bad a charity they are, and found this on Wikpedia

I get more annoyed by people who donate money to the Harvard endowment or to build a new classroom at Wharton, or some other vanity project that is desperately NOT in need of money.

I ran into this at a company I used to work for. Didn't like the United Way but ended up making small donations because my boss made such a big deal out of it I was pretty sure it would cost me more if I didn't.

It's not charity if you do it for a tax deduction.