A compromise that I find appealing and might implement for myself is giving a fixed percentage over a fixed amount, with that fixed percentage being relatively high (well above ten percent). You could also have multiple “donation brackets” with an increased marginal donation rate as your income increases.
Singer’s proposal in that article isn’t _quite_ that, though it may be that he just didn’t think it through carefully enough (or deliberately simplified in an article intended for general consumption). He proposes that the fraction you give of your _total_ income should be, if you’re in the top [10%, 1%, 0.1%, 0.01%], [10%, 15%, 25%, 33%], producing discontinuities at the boundaries of those groups. I suspect that if pressed on that point he’d be happy to go with something smoother.
It makes sense, and it mostly dodges the problem that other “simple” formulae for charity have—namely that most simple systems tend to be essentially voluntary regressive taxation.
This is why the 10% rule has always bugged me—it is a culturally accepted voluntary regressive tax, and as such it exacerbates social inequality.
[Also, one of my friends likes to joke that our culture holds that you give 10% of your income to charity, but capital gains are exempt...]
I’m always on the lookout for things that seem innocuous or even beneficial that actually are ways of enforcing the social structure and preventing upwards mobility, like our strange insistence on prescriptive rules of language, and upon the necessity of “sounding intelligent”.
Language are evolved social constructs, and “correct grammar” is determined by native speakers. However, we impose additional rules that stray from the natural form of the language, and develop a notion that certain ways of speaking/writing are proper, and that other ways are ignorant. To learn how to speak in a way that sounds intelligent requires additional investment of time and effort, and those that cannot afford to do so (can’t afford to spend as much time reading, or comes from an area with worse schools) will grow up speaking a completely intelligible version of the language, but one that is generally recognized as sounding like a marker of ignorance, and thus limits possibilities for advancement.
Ok, I really got off topic there, but my point was that our cultural construct that people should give a fixed percentage of their income to charity might very well not be a force for good, but rather a force opposing good.
It is a regressive taxation system, but one that is culturally supported. Further, because so many people feel like everyone is already voluntarily consenting to give to charity (especially through religious organizations) that actual taxation is an unnecessary imposition.
If we didn’t have a culturally accepted obligation for charity, we wouldn’t give as much money to inefficient charities and religious institutions, and might be more willing to consent to a higher progressive tax.
If we didn’t have a culturally accepted obligation for charity, we wouldn’t give as much money to inefficient charities and religious institutions, and might be more willing to consent to a higher progressive tax.
And if people didn’t naturally want to have sex, we might be more willing to consent to government-assigned reproduction!
My point was that since our cultural instinct is to give, but in practice this is done inefficiently, [charities are wasteful, people don’t give to charities to optimize utility but rather to charities that they think they like, and a flat percentage is probably worse than a progressive tax], and therefore it would probably be better for society if we didn’t expect charity from people—this seemingly beneficial cultural obligation can be argued to be harmful.
How is it regressive? (I suppose if A has a policy of giving 10% of what you get after tax and B looks at A’s giving as a fraction of income before tax then it’ll look like a regressive policy. But you could equally say that if A gives 10% of income before tax, and B looks at giving as a fraction of income after tax, then proportional giving looks like a progressive policy.)
Many advocates of proportional giving would say that if you’re poor then you shouldn’t be feeling obliged to give at all, which would make the policy progressive overall.
but capital gains are exempt
I don’t think it’s fair to blame this on the idea of proportional giving.
If we didn’t have a culturally accepted obligation for charity, we [...] might be more willing to consent to a higher progressive tax.
I suppose that’s possible in theory. I gravely doubt it would actually happen in practice. (Perhaps if we were forbidden to give to charities privately, but that seems like an obviously really terrible idea.)
A compromise that I find appealing and might implement for myself is giving a fixed percentage over a fixed amount, with that fixed percentage being relatively high (well above ten percent). You could also have multiple “donation brackets” with an increased marginal donation rate as your income increases.
Yes, I like this approach too.
This is what Peter Singer proposes.
Singer’s proposal in that article isn’t _quite_ that, though it may be that he just didn’t think it through carefully enough (or deliberately simplified in an article intended for general consumption). He proposes that the fraction you give of your _total_ income should be, if you’re in the top [10%, 1%, 0.1%, 0.01%], [10%, 15%, 25%, 33%], producing discontinuities at the boundaries of those groups. I suspect that if pressed on that point he’d be happy to go with something smoother.
I like this approach.
It makes sense, and it mostly dodges the problem that other “simple” formulae for charity have—namely that most simple systems tend to be essentially voluntary regressive taxation.
This is why the 10% rule has always bugged me—it is a culturally accepted voluntary regressive tax, and as such it exacerbates social inequality.
[Also, one of my friends likes to joke that our culture holds that you give 10% of your income to charity, but capital gains are exempt...]
I’m always on the lookout for things that seem innocuous or even beneficial that actually are ways of enforcing the social structure and preventing upwards mobility, like our strange insistence on prescriptive rules of language, and upon the necessity of “sounding intelligent”.
Language are evolved social constructs, and “correct grammar” is determined by native speakers. However, we impose additional rules that stray from the natural form of the language, and develop a notion that certain ways of speaking/writing are proper, and that other ways are ignorant. To learn how to speak in a way that sounds intelligent requires additional investment of time and effort, and those that cannot afford to do so (can’t afford to spend as much time reading, or comes from an area with worse schools) will grow up speaking a completely intelligible version of the language, but one that is generally recognized as sounding like a marker of ignorance, and thus limits possibilities for advancement.
Ok, I really got off topic there, but my point was that our cultural construct that people should give a fixed percentage of their income to charity might very well not be a force for good, but rather a force opposing good.
It is a regressive taxation system, but one that is culturally supported. Further, because so many people feel like everyone is already voluntarily consenting to give to charity (especially through religious organizations) that actual taxation is an unnecessary imposition.
If we didn’t have a culturally accepted obligation for charity, we wouldn’t give as much money to inefficient charities and religious institutions, and might be more willing to consent to a higher progressive tax.
And if people didn’t naturally want to have sex, we might be more willing to consent to government-assigned reproduction!
Yes, that is true as well.
My point was that since our cultural instinct is to give, but in practice this is done inefficiently, [charities are wasteful, people don’t give to charities to optimize utility but rather to charities that they think they like, and a flat percentage is probably worse than a progressive tax], and therefore it would probably be better for society if we didn’t expect charity from people—this seemingly beneficial cultural obligation can be argued to be harmful.
How is it regressive? (I suppose if A has a policy of giving 10% of what you get after tax and B looks at A’s giving as a fraction of income before tax then it’ll look like a regressive policy. But you could equally say that if A gives 10% of income before tax, and B looks at giving as a fraction of income after tax, then proportional giving looks like a progressive policy.)
Many advocates of proportional giving would say that if you’re poor then you shouldn’t be feeling obliged to give at all, which would make the policy progressive overall.
I don’t think it’s fair to blame this on the idea of proportional giving.
I suppose that’s possible in theory. I gravely doubt it would actually happen in practice. (Perhaps if we were forbidden to give to charities privately, but that seems like an obviously really terrible idea.)