So after reading about this stuff, and sort of lumping it together, here's a plan: why don't we remove charitable deductions and use the surplus tax dollars (after it supposedly helps us get out of debt) to create a government funded and ran system of evaluation for charities. Removing the charitable deductions wouldn't be as damaging to donations as it sounds: the Tim Harford article implies the altruistic and "warm glow" donors would still donate, just as they would in a recession. In a way, this would kind of purify the world of donors , weeding out some of the ones who do it because of social pressure. Perhaps the excess tax money would exceed the loss of these donations. Not to mention that many of the "social pressure" donors may not even cease donations because of the eradication of charitable deductions. The tax dollars could then be used to create an evaluation system along the likes of the one proposed by Dan Pallotta. I think there are some existing government programs that function similarly. Why not one for this purpose? And it is unlikely that such a department would require ALL of the excess tax dollars. The rest could be injected back into the non profit sector, thus further confronting the donation deficit created by the donors who don't donate anymore because of the removal of charitable deductions.
I know, it's not that simple, but it seems to me that it could work.
On another note, I found the study on forewarned vs. unforewarned interactions between donor seekers and potential donors interesting. Doesn't surprise me that the altruistic types donated more when warned the seekers would be coming. For the "socially pressured" group, I guess time to plan an excuse prevailed over the pressure being applied over time. For a moment I thought that when these people were warned, they would feel the pressure from that point until the meeting, perhaps intensifying it. Maybe it would make them even more embarrassed if the donation collectors knew they were hiding on purpose. Apparently not. The article doesn't say anything about the "warm glow" people. I wonder what the study said unveiled about them.
Greg-
ReplyDeleteThe plan you formulated actually ties the readings together really well for me. I will admit that after I was done reading each article I was feeling kind of scattered, a lot of information to think about and form opinions on at once. It sounds like that plan could actually be pretty legitimate, but like you said, there are probably many snags, my question now is, why hasn't there been efforts to make a system or plan like that, or has there?
Greg-
ReplyDeleteI'm just going to leave all of the tax planning information to you because I still don't understand it :) As for the "socially pressured" group, I agree with you and thought of it like when mailmen ask for canned food donations and tell you what days they will be collecting food and to just leave it in your mailbox if you want to contribute. The fact that they give you warning let's you think about if you want to give and to plan around the day they will be there, instead of just showing up and asking you when you maybe wouldn't have extra food to give away.
g man,
ReplyDeleteI agree with Jeralyn, you made a good connection between the readings. I like your idea to make the evaluation system government ran because I was wondering how much of ones opinions would get in the way of the effectiveness evaluation, but then again maybe the government isn't where we want it, depends on your thoughts about the government I guess..
I also thought about the pressure building for the socially pressured group of givers.. I know I would be thinking about it until the day came, but maybe those that are socially pressured, with no feelings to give to do good, have less of a conscious, so maybe thats it.. just a thought.. :)
You are such an innovative thinker--hope you stay engaged with thinking about policy!
ReplyDelete