Michael Dell Pledges $36M in Harvey Relief
nytimes.com
nytimes.com
Making people financially whole and getting them back on their feet in the aftermath of a disaster of these proportions should be handled by insurance, and when that falls short, the government.
The problem is not that the money is private, but that it's donation relies on the compassion of individuals, not on laws.
If that's not the case and these donations are a tiny portion of the funds for the relief effort, then why do we make such a big deal about them, when there are probably a lot of other people who have donated a similar percentage of their (much smaller) net worth?
> donation relies on the compassion of individuals, not on laws.
It would be odd to expect laws to be more compassionate on average than all the individuals under the laws, particularly in an ostensibly democratic society. Yet I can think of several plausible reasons to expect laws to be less compassionate on average than individuals.
Not if you assume that compassion isn't complete selflessness, and at least some of the population understands on some level the adverse incentives associated with things that are game-theoretically similar to tragedy of the commons.
So if e.g. the main charity in town is a religious group, all of the homeless shelters and soup kitchens will come with a side of proselytizing or decide to turn away supposed blasphemers. Or if some of the main supporters of academic research happen to be motivated billionaires, we’ll see results that suspiciously align with their personal interests. Etc.
Sometimes a good thing is just a good thing...
> Sincere props to Michael Dell and other very wealthy individuals who are donating generously, but it raises the question of why this sort of gesture is even necessary in our society.
As it should be. Generosity should not be forced on people via fear of the law (i.e the consequences for not paying your taxes). Even further, a private citizen is often far more in control of the effective distribution of their resources as compared to government.
Want to help victims in Texas floodplains? Disadvantaged youth? AIDS in Africa?
It's your choice.
A nonprofit uses its money like crap? Or uses it in ways you don't agree with? Give to a more effective one.
It's your choice.
It's very hard to choose what the government will do with your assets. It's much easier to choose what a charity will do.
That said, I'm sympathetic to the general problem of government not utilizing resources efficiently.
Nah, it's not a matter of perspective, because that's exactly what it is. Citizens are motivated to pay their taxes through fear of the consequences of disobeying the law. Thus, generosity that is forced on a citizen via taxes is ultimately fear-based (not compassion-based) generosity.
Others see it as general societal obligation to take care of its members
Which is why we Americans have started and serve in hundreds of thousands of private organizations from churches to food banks to shelters to clothing charities and more, and many are quite effective at providing in times of need. If I was hit by similar circumstances, I would go to one of these already-existing institutions and seek aid.
Government is just a way of getting everyone facing the same direction, they don't have to step in when society does things of it own accord.
Of course they should step in where these uncoordinated actions are insufficient or misguided.
Congress tried reforming it back in '12, but unreformed it after they reformed it because "premiums were getting too dear" (and congress always seeking re-election, got cold feet and again undercharges). Now flood insurance is $25B under (before calculating Harvey in to the mix).
If the government were to do the right thing, they would ease up on subsidizing these homes over 50 years (so people don't suffer catastrophic asset loss) but at the same time discourage new development (in the floodplain) from enjoying the same perks.
Encourage new development to take place in non flood plains.
Texas says it wants less government. The people there keep joking about independence (I'm talking sincere middle aged wasp men, not some edgy teen). Personally, I think the federal government should be involved in the immediate disaster relief and that's about it. No tax discount for buying a new car, new house, renovation, nothing. No federal money for reconstruction. Let Texas state government ask for the money it needs.
But the proposed insurance would become less affordable over time (tapering off the subsidy), off-setting the increased value due to scarcity.
As a fellow Texan, this mentality gets taken to an extreme by some people in this state – usually rural – but I don't think it's reflective of an overwhelming majority. California wants to secede too, so maybe we're onto something. ;)
Texans do tend to have a lot of personal pride and love for their state which was reflected in impressive volunteer-rescue effort that grew organically and spread like fire. My brother said every boat dealer was sold out of flat bottoms in Dallas. I do think it was unprecedented and hopefully set a positive precedence for social behavior in situations like this. For a gun-toting state, I'd say it was surprisingly civilized and non-violent for the 4th largest city in the United States (500k less people than Chicago)
I'm sorry if this came the wrong way but I only say this because I love Texas so much. I spent my shaping years there and east Texas feels like home to me but there is so much irrational hatred of socialism which doesn't make sense for people never subjected to it. I apologize for my rudeness.
This is pretty much how I feel about all social issues like health care, homelessness, education, etc...
Large donations are nice, and we should all be grateful for such generosity, but I'd much rather pay an extra bundle in taxes so our government can be adequately prepared for all these scenarios.
Well, that's the american (US?) culture. Different ways of doing things.
The purpose of the United States is to make corporations (and their owners) obscenely rich.
Tax breaks like those recently shown to Apple are the perfect example.
So because corporations, and therefore their owners like Mr. Dell are obscenely rich, the government is not. In fact, it does not even have enough money to provide Health Care, higher education or disaster relief to it's citizens.
I'm in Australia and I really don't understand the US attitude to these things, I gather neither does the rest of the world. The last federal election here the right wanted to introduce a more user pays health system, the left countered with we don't want a health system like the US. Pretty well everyone agreed and that was that.
No one likes paying taxes, but a country without people paying taxes is not one that is pleasant to live in.
Let's hope that these money will actually reach victims.
Which is not given.
Paging Mark Cuban.....
There are 50 billionaires in Texas, thus far the Houston Texans owner promised $10 million and Dell $36 million.
36x of what Trump has donated would be 0.
It sounds like you've never made a charitable donation under the American tax code. A dollar donated isn't a dollar saved. A dollar donated is (1-marginal tax rate) dollars saved.
https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/charitable-organiz...
You only deduct the percentage dictated by your tax bracket. So assuming he's in the 39.6% tax bracket his tax obligation is reduced by 39.6 cents for every dollar he donates.
This is an oversimplification, there's a bit more to it than that, but you get the point. Maybe.
Michael Dell, the billionaire Texan who founded Dell Technologies, has pledged $36 million of his foundation’s money to help disaster relief efforts in the wake of Hurricane Harvey.
The gift from the Michael and Susan Dell Foundation is the largest donation to date aimed at recovery efforts.
Or this could be new money I am not sure.
Now that it's in the charity it's not your money in that you can't legally use it on a night out.
So, there is a very big difference in donation = tax deduction, allocation = no additional tax deduction.
http://philanthropynewsdigest.org/news/michael-and-susan-del...
But there are others as well.. he won the pulitzer for his reporting on this
Sometimes he uses it to buy portraits of himself for $20,000.[0]
[0]https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/11...