Korean Job Discussion Forums

[mack4289]

This is a different take on Americans' philanthropic ways. I agree with the tax credit system for donations, but this is something to think about.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/09/05/business/giving.php?page=2

"{Billionaire investor Daniel] Gross vigorously dismisses the notion that the wealthy are helping society more effectively and efficiently than government.

"When millions of people are dying of AIDS and malaria in Africa, it is hard to justify the umpteenth society gala held for the benefit of a performing arts center or an art museum," he wrote in his investment commentary this month. "A $30 million gift to a concert hall is not philanthropy, it is a Napoleonic coronation."

Elaborating during an interview, Gross said he did not think the public benefit from philanthropy was commensurate with the tax breaks the givers received. "I don't think we're getting the bang for the buck for gifts to build football stadiums and concert halls, with all due respect to Carnegie Hall and other institutions," he said. "I don't think the public would vote for spending tax dollars on those things."

The billionaires' differing views epitomize a growing debate over what philanthropy is achieving at a time when the wealthiest Americans control a rising share of the national income and, because of sharp cuts in personal taxes, give up less to government.

... What qualifies for that tax deduction has broadened over the 90 years since its creation to include everything from university golf teams to puppet theaters - even an organization established after Hurricane Katrina to help practitioners of sadomasochism obtain gear they lost in the storm.

.... Research shows that less than 10 percent of the money Americans give to charity addresses basic human needs, like sheltering the homeless, feeding the hungry and caring for the indigent sick, and that the wealthiest typically devote an even smaller portion of their giving to such causes than everyone else.

... Philanthropists like [billionaire businessman Eli} Broad say that looking at philanthropy solely as a means of ameliorating need is too narrow. "If you look historically at what Carnegie did with creating a library system and the Rockefellers in creating Rockefeller University, I think it does a lot more for society than simply supporting those in need," Broad said.

... Like many philanthropists, Broad said he considered such gifts an illustration of the proverb: "Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish, and you feed him for a lifetime." The argument is that simply taking care of the poor does nothing to eliminate poverty and that they will ultimately benefit more from efforts to, for example, find cures for the diseases that afflict them or improve public education.

... The charitable deduction cost the government $40 billion in lost tax revenue last year, according to the Joint Committee on Taxation, more than the government spends altogether on managing public lands, protecting the environment and developing new energy sources."

I'm on Broad's side here because people making donations have more control over how their money is spent. The government is much harder to hold accountable than a charity. Still, it's a debate worth having.