Methinks these thresholds should be thought of not as voluntary donations but as compulsory taxes. Taxes that could spent on fundamentally tackling sociial justice issues.
“Faced with an ethical argument that requires us to give away much of our income….”
There is no such sound argument. The attempt in “Famine, Affluence, and Morality” is paradoxical.
“My hope is that people will be convinced that they can and should give at these levels. I believe that doing so would be a first step toward restoring the ethical importance of giving as an essential component of a well-lived life.”
Respect for individual liberty is the main thing that needs to be promoted.
“And if it is widely adopted, we’ll have more than enough money to end extreme poverty.”
To the extent that markets are free they have been solving this problem. Extreme poverty is almost entirely caused by political intervention, not lack of charity.
What is worse than the extreme poverty that free markets (including free trade), insofar as they have been allowed politically, have been causing to disappear?
I fully agree with problem statement, but I have doubts about the suggested approach. The high earners usually invest their excess money. Those investments, provided they go well, create jobs and additional wealth. Using the money for other purposes (more urgent purposes perhaps) would probabably lead to a short term improvement, but sacrificing the long term.
Having defined thresholds makes the enterprise of giving feel more realistic and actionable, taking it out of the category of loft ambition where one finds fondled objects of the mind like "learn the piano" that often get deferred indefinitely. Knowing that I'd never "need" to give so much it would jeopardise my financial security reduces the fear that's preventing me from taking the plunge.
One quick clarification: are these thresholds based on the cost of living in the US? Do you recommend people adjust according to purchasing power parity? $81,000 in India means something completely different than $81,000 in Norway...
I like these guidelines a lot. Have you ever considered a % of wealth as a guideline for those at the very upper end of the wealth scale? I find that's more relevant once wealth exceeds an amount that places you in the top 0.1% and when you might not have a salary. That's how i think about it.
I donate 10%, and my income barely enters your lowest tier. :-p
Being single and carless in countries with low-ish cost of living let me save enough to do that easily.
Methinks these thresholds should be thought of not as voluntary donations but as compulsory taxes. Taxes that could spent on fundamentally tackling sociial justice issues.
“Faced with an ethical argument that requires us to give away much of our income….”
There is no such sound argument. The attempt in “Famine, Affluence, and Morality” is paradoxical.
“My hope is that people will be convinced that they can and should give at these levels. I believe that doing so would be a first step toward restoring the ethical importance of giving as an essential component of a well-lived life.”
Respect for individual liberty is the main thing that needs to be promoted.
“And if it is widely adopted, we’ll have more than enough money to end extreme poverty.”
To the extent that markets are free they have been solving this problem. Extreme poverty is almost entirely caused by political intervention, not lack of charity.
https://jclester.substack.com/p/peter-singers-famine-affluence-and?utm_source=publication-search
https://jclester.substack.com/p/liberty-in-itself-a-libertarian-viewpoint?utm_source=publication-search
https://jclester.substack.com/p/charity-and-libertarianism?utm_source=publication-search
Free market is a way to end extreme poverty.. and establish an even worst economic situation
What is worse than the extreme poverty that free markets (including free trade), insofar as they have been allowed politically, have been causing to disappear?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tWM3MOA5Tj0
I fully agree with problem statement, but I have doubts about the suggested approach. The high earners usually invest their excess money. Those investments, provided they go well, create jobs and additional wealth. Using the money for other purposes (more urgent purposes perhaps) would probabably lead to a short term improvement, but sacrificing the long term.
Having defined thresholds makes the enterprise of giving feel more realistic and actionable, taking it out of the category of loft ambition where one finds fondled objects of the mind like "learn the piano" that often get deferred indefinitely. Knowing that I'd never "need" to give so much it would jeopardise my financial security reduces the fear that's preventing me from taking the plunge.
One quick clarification: are these thresholds based on the cost of living in the US? Do you recommend people adjust according to purchasing power parity? $81,000 in India means something completely different than $81,000 in Norway...
Thanks!
As a preschool teacher- guess i give 0
I like these guidelines a lot. Have you ever considered a % of wealth as a guideline for those at the very upper end of the wealth scale? I find that's more relevant once wealth exceeds an amount that places you in the top 0.1% and when you might not have a salary. That's how i think about it.