I agree that the self-congratulatory round of charity events in New York City is rather spectacularly useless and self-serving. No one who buys expensive tickets to a charity gala should be preening themselves on their fine charitable instincts.
What happens in a charity dinner or auction is that people get something they value, for which they pay somewhat more on the grounds that "it's for charity". But they deduct, not the price premium they were willing to pay for a charitable event, but the entire value of the purchase. Unfortunately, the IRS doesn't have any way to look into peoples' souls and determine how much they would have paid, so we let them get away with it.
However, there often is a meaningful donation, which is the services and venues offered to the event planners. If the Waldorf-Astoria hotel donates its grand ballroom to a charity dinner, it sacrifices quite a lot of foregone income, and deserves our applause. Perhaps we should limit the tax deduction for charitable events to this sort of in-kind giving.
Actually, we do. The IRS rules changed many years ago so that only the excess over the inherant value can be deducted. (Calculating the inherant value can be tricky but at least its better than being able to deduct the entire cost.)
For example, if you buy a ticked to a charity dinner you are allowed to deduct the cost of the ticket minus the value of whatever good or service you recieved.
Or all deductions for charitable giving could be eliminated from the tax code. Economically, some givers could then choose to receive their rewards on earth in the form of recognition, good feelings and association with the rich and powerful. Others might wish to store up treasure in heaven by giving to the poor or others that could not ever repay or reciprocate the gift. Then you would be able to peek into the people's souls, so to speak.
Charitable organizations are supposed to break down the cost of such events into the actual value of the thing you're getting, and the charitable donation that is everything else. So with the swag you get for donating to NPR, or whatever, if you give $50 and get a tote bag worth $8 in return, they tell you that you can write $42 off of your taxes.
Do venues such as the Waldorf-Astoria donate their space, charge a reduced price or charge the full amount?
Oh, I know . . but the value of a charity dance isn't the rubber chicken meal and the space, it's all the guests you get to rub shoulders with. You'd pay a lot more for that than for what they knock off the deduction.
Lewis Carroll actually incorporated a little riff on this idea in "Sylvie and Bruno Concluded." You can read it here:
http://www.bibliomania.com/0/0/11/1946/25904/3.html.
(Look for the part where they're discussing "one of those abominations of modern Society, a Charity-Bazaar.")
I would bet that a portion of the people at the major charity events in Manhattan don't put any value on the swag they get, nor particularly even enjoy being hit up to participate in the flood of events that occur all around the same time each year in the fall.
Depending on what income level of event we are talking about, it becomes a task just to get people to commit. Rubbing shoulders with people you could just as soon call up and see in private over at table at Per Se is hardly reward.
Whether such events are useless and self-serving can only be determined by how much money and attention the charity in question ultimately receives.
The fact that such events (and many charitable actions) are self-serving does not in fact negate the value of the act itself, to the extent some recipient benefits in a defined way.
*(The link/website didn't work on my system, so could not tell the exact reference for the comments).
Same with annual dues to charity organizations. With National Audubon Society, you're supposed to net out the value of the gorgeous and expensively-produced magazine that you get free every month.
And for some of us, when we have a particularly good year, get our charity deductions quite severely limited.
What Finn said. It's highly unlikely that anyone is paying $1000 simply to be in the same room with Sam Butler (head of Cravath, New York Public Library trustee) or Robert Cochran (head of FSA, wife is big in Central Park Conservancy). You could see those same people at industry gatherings for a lot less money. And the air of self-congratulation is no greater or less than it is at the average journalistic gathering, where a group of content providers for wood pulp processing congratulate themselves for their role as Jeffersonian demigods.
If the Waldorf-Astoria hotel donates its grand ballroom to a charity dinner, it sacrifices quite a lot of foregone income, and deserves our applause.-MM
Why? The Waldorf-Astoria is owned by Hilton Hotels, which is publicly traded. I don't see anything particularly admirable about Hilton's CEO giving away his shareholders' money. Rather than applause, I'd give that swanky Manhattan hotel a Bronx Cheer.
The idea of giving away ballrooms or anything else is a total red herring. None of the people professionally involved in charity events (hotels, caterers, bandleaders, flower arrangers, etc.) gives their services away except in very unusual circumstances. In normal circumstances, renting a room at the Waldorf for a benefit for your church's soup kitchen costs the same as renting the room for your daughter's wedding.
Just last night I was looking into getting a membership at the Brooklyn Museum. I see on their website that while the two cheapest memberships (Individual and Family) are entirely deductible, everything above that is only partially deductible.
"sacrifices quite a lot of foregone income...."
The stupid. It hurts.
Megan your link is faulty. It goes to http://http//ezraklein.typepad.com/blog/2007/10/how-charity-sub.html
It should go to
http://ezraklein.typepad.com/blog/2007/10/how-charity-sub.html
When you are saying "perhaps we should" do this or allow that, do you ever get a faint tinge of concern about the majority imposing their will on the minority. I presume you mean by "we" anything over 50% of the voting population and by "do" or "allow" you mean application of force sufficient to compel up to and including incarceration.