I'm proud to join a coalition of philanthropists and foundations to announce an effort to accelerate charitable giving. The effort calls for common-sense tax reforms to help increase the amount and flow of resources to charities. Short thread on the issues and our proposals. 1/
Private foundations (PFs) and donor advised funds (DAFs) are important vehicles to support giving. But asset aggregation in these vehicles is not enough. Our tax laws should ensure these dollars get distributed to the community in a timely manner. Today they don't. 2/
Moving money to a DAF is a tax strategy, not philanthropy. Distributing the money from a DAF to nonprofit orgs that support the community is when it becomes a charitable act.
Tax law should encourage both actions, not just the former.
3/
There's a growing disconnect between growth of funds in tax-free accounts and $ given to working charities. These vehicles are not an end to themselves. They exist to support the community. We propose 3 reforms to ensure the sector prioritizes charities over asset aggregation. 4/
First, DAFs must fulfill their charitable purpose. Donors to DAFs get a tax benefit today but there are no gov't incentives or requirements to ever distribute the $ to the community. DAFs should be time-limited to 15 years or the tax benefit is delayed until $ is distributed. 5/
Second, while PFs have a 5% distribution requirement, there are loopholes that should be closed. Family member travel and salaries should not count as part of the 5%. Distributions from PFs to DAFs should not count. And there should be incentives for quicker distributions. 6/
Last, the tax code should encourage giving at all levels. A broad set of donors strengthens society. While a majority give to charity, almost 90% receive no tax benefit. Congress should expand the tax deduction to smartly increase the amount of giving and # of donors. 7/
As we struggle with Covid19 & racial equality, we need a strong nonprofit sector now more than ever. The sector’s goal should not be to maximize assets in tax-free accounts; it must be to improve lives. As my philanthropic hero Chuck Feeney said, “The need is now. Why wait.” 8/
Proposals like $200 pharma gift cards & $50k student loan forgiveness are consequences of a political system that rewards politically expediency rather than addressing structural problems. These ideas not only perpetuate poorly designed systems but propagate them. 1/
Resource allocation has tradeoffs, even if they’re not explicit. With seemingly no constraints on deficits now, there is an illusion of no tradeoffs. The result is policymaking that, in using band-aids, weakens public demand (and hence political will) for needed reforms. 2/
The issues around student loan forgiveness are best summarized by @justinwolfers as “Worst. Idea. Ever.” So why is it even being considered? Giveaways are easy; fixing systems is hard. 3/ freakonomics.com/2011/09/19/for…
Yes, elections can see-saw back and forth each cycle but every congressional Dem in a competitive seat in 2022 has to be terrified right now. This will translate into a more moderate agenda regardless of who controls the Senate. 1/
It's clear the Dem platform/messaging is not translating well beyond the coasts. If Dems want to expand the map, they need leadership, punditry, and media that comes from outside the Northeast Megalopolis/California. 2/
The theory in “Coming Apart” by @charlesmurray that the fictionalized, elite “Belmont” is in such a bubble that it has lost touch with the white, working-class “Fishtown” is illustrated every day the NYT publishes multiple op-eds denigrating every Republican (48% of country). 3/
Distressed companies become stronger after flushing their debt through bankruptcy, allowing them to regain competitiveness & make investments for future. It's incredibly valuable tool, though one largely unavailable to states, cities & public agencies like transit authorities. 1/
The prohibition on bankruptcy is not a feature; it’s a bug that condemns jurisdictions and agencies to a permanent state of limbo. They struggle just to service their existing debt, built up during more prosperous times or while politicians were financially profligate. 2/
The current & future generations that depend on these services are the victims. Entities get caught in vicious cycle of having to raise taxes/fees while cutting services. The result is population declines, economic stagnation, and lower usership. 3/
Newspapers have been in a decline since 2005 but this year marks another leg down. As newspapers close or get cut to the bone, public accountability of local institutions declines. The watchdog role that newspapers play will be lost without models subsidized by philanthropy. 1/
With a hedge fund being the high bidder in the bankruptcy auction of McClatchy Company (publisher of 30 papers including Miami, KC, Sacramento, Charlotte) this week, financial players now control almost 45% of total newspaper circulation. This isn’t going to get better. 2/
Accountability is a public good, which are usually subsidized with govt money. But local, state, or fed govts directly funding its overseer creates a risk on editorial independence. This market failure results in a shortage of oversight and, thus, worse societal outcomes. 3/
I have very different interpretation about merit aid to wealthy families than this article. Rather than discounting list price tuition to wealthy, well-qualified students, my theory is list price includes mandatory “donation” for students on the bubble. nytimes.com/2020/06/16/opi…
Rather than thinking of the list price as the base and colleges applying discounts, it’s more descriptive to think of the actual cost of education as the base and then consider whose price gets marked up (wealthy students either int'l or on the bubble academically). 2/13
This is relevant to the colleges outside of the top tier with 10 or 11 figure endowments with need blind admissions. Most colleges must balance merit with ability to pay in selecting the incoming class. To do so, they price discriminate via merit and financial aid. 3/13
Many good proposals to improve policing policies have been offered over the past week that should be enacted. But material change is harder than just changing laws or words in the employee handbook. “Culture eats strategy for breakfast,” is true in most orgs, including PDs. 1/8
The #8cantwait campaign claims that enacting the slate of reforms “can decrease police violence by 72% (versus having none of these policies).” I'm skeptical it's this easy. Enacting policies without culture change is helpful but limited. 2/8
After Laquan McDonald shooting, the DOJ sent a team in to investigate the Chicago PD. A member of that team later told me Chicago had better policies than his last department. The problem wasn't the policies; it was that officers weren’t following the policies on the streets. 3/8