it’s a good counter-point to Roko’s fantasy about the kindness of billionaires
$11 billion was taken as a charitable deduction, a proportion of about 8%
Note that SpaceX, Blue Origin, Virgin Galactic wouldn’t be counted in that as it is not technically charity.
In 2002, the average British person gave 147 pounds to charity, and the average net income is roughly 15,000 pounds per person, making an average donation level of about 1%.
So the super rich are 8 times as charitable as the average person.
In the USA, the average person is waaaay more charitable. Unfortunately, that’s all money going to churches, so not high-impact money.
Perhaps I should have qualified myself: ordinary Americans do spend money on what they think is important: they overwhelmingly give to churches.
But again, intention is not what matters to a consequentialist. Results matter.
I venture that if you put this data next to the marginal utility of money the 1% donation of the ordinary people will look way more charitable than the 8% or the super-rich.
Buffett said, rather honestly (after declaring his intention of giving away 99%) something along the lines of “don’t look at me for charity advice, I never gave away a dollar I actually needed”. You have to discount super-rich giving quite steeply on altruism scale.
Additional accounting note: the 8% comes from American data, so 8x is not the true ratio your 1% figure is from UK, and according to you Americans’ giving is waaay more charitable. Also not known how much of the super-rich giving goes to churches as you point out.
Just to point out, we are not arguing about altruism of the super-rich, not their usefulness in a capitalist society; they are not only a necessary evil but are actually useful because of their investment profile.
It is the results that matter, though. I should have worded my original comment to make this clear. Ordinary people in the USA give bucketloads of money to Churches, but that one set of donations by Theil to SIAI matters almost infinitely more.
Agreed, but this still does not indicate any general altruism of the super-rich. Pragmatically, you’re better off hitting them up for 10M than me for $100, even if I am giving up more utils in process. Individually Theil deserves credit for far-sightedness, of course.
Note that SpaceX, Blue Origin, Virgin Galactic wouldn’t be counted in that as it is not technically charity.
In 2002, the average British person gave 147 pounds to charity, and the average net income is roughly 15,000 pounds per person, making an average donation level of about 1%.
So the super rich are 8 times as charitable as the average person.
In the USA, the average person is waaaay more charitable. Unfortunately, that’s all money going to churches, so not high-impact money.
Perhaps I should have qualified myself: ordinary Americans do spend money on what they think is important: they overwhelmingly give to churches.
But again, intention is not what matters to a consequentialist. Results matter.
I venture that if you put this data next to the marginal utility of money the 1% donation of the ordinary people will look way more charitable than the 8% or the super-rich.
Buffett said, rather honestly (after declaring his intention of giving away 99%) something along the lines of “don’t look at me for charity advice, I never gave away a dollar I actually needed”. You have to discount super-rich giving quite steeply on altruism scale.
Additional accounting note: the 8% comes from American data, so 8x is not the true ratio your 1% figure is from UK, and according to you Americans’ giving is waaay more charitable. Also not known how much of the super-rich giving goes to churches as you point out.
Just to point out, we are not arguing about altruism of the super-rich, not their usefulness in a capitalist society; they are not only a necessary evil but are actually useful because of their investment profile.
It is the results that matter, though. I should have worded my original comment to make this clear. Ordinary people in the USA give bucketloads of money to Churches, but that one set of donations by Theil to SIAI matters almost infinitely more.
Agreed, but this still does not indicate any general altruism of the super-rich. Pragmatically, you’re better off hitting them up for 10M than me for $100, even if I am giving up more utils in process. Individually Theil deserves credit for far-sightedness, of course.