Tyner
Posts 8
Comments84
>>Why present 50% as the “maximum typical”?
>>Arguably someone earning $1M+ annually should be encouraged to give a lot more than 50%
In the US tax deductions cap at 60%, so that could be a sensible place to draw a line.
https://www.investopedia.com/articles/personal-finance/041315/tips-charitable-contributions-limits-and-taxes.asp
Toby - I appreciated reading your updates based on the events of the last 5ish years.
I'm am wondering if you have also reconsidered the underlying analyses and assumptions that went into your initially published models? There's been a fair amount written about this; to me the best is from David Thorstad here:
https://reflectivealtruism.com/category/exaggerating-the-risks/
I would really value you engaging with the arguments he or others present, as a second kind of update.
Cheers
I would really appreciate further analysis of family planning as an intervention. Some specific questions I’d like to see tackled:
- What is the cost effectiveness of these interventions/organizations when looking at a variety of metrics (e.g. preventing maternal deaths, preventing obstetric fistula, increasing subjective well-being, increasing wealth etc.)?
- Some framework for tallying these benefits.
- Do these interventions lead to a permanent reduction in family size, or a temporary one?
- What is the impact to farmed animals (i.e. does this intervention benefit from the meat-eater problem)?
- What about climate change or other environmental impacts?
Here are some posts that provide a start:
And here’s a really good report on one org:
https://rethinkpriorities.org/publications/family-empowerment-media
And CE has some good reports on some interventions:
>What I personally think is that those who are pledgees should consider donation matching as part of a prospective job's compensation as it is a permanent cost. (also would incentivise negotiation in that direction)
I'm not sure I understand. Are you suggesting that GWWC should include the donation match in the denominator, but not the numerator? Or include in both? Or are you not talking about GWWC at all here?
I'm giving to the EA Animal Welfare Fund.
https://funds.effectivealtruism.org/funds/animal-welfare
I thought this was likely among the best giving opportunities around. And then was further persuaded by the investigation from GWWC.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1hqYNZ9zJfe3D_nyJ4b21J0IJs210upAXTw8fPWnYJe8/edit#heading=h.kiw67f2s2v90
The Nonhuman Rights Project provides a possible point of comparison. From 2013 to 2023 they raised $13.2 Million. As far as I know, they have never won a case.