So I disagree on the medical research example as that should be included in public research funding. Your example of the FSF is spot on as an area of expansion. For the examples like Project Linus, I assume smaller charities like that make up less than 10% of charity totals combined which would fall into the example of “lets focus on the main 90%”. If the share of charities that are not covered by Maslows L1 is smaller than like 80ish percent then the approach would need to be changed. I have no idea how to search for that data. I would think that the items listed would cover 90ish percent of I could be way off though and am curious is there is a way to find that out.
So I disagree on the medical research example as that should be included in public research funding. Your example of the FSF is spot on as an area of expansion. For the examples like Project Linus, I assume smaller charities like that make up less than 10% of charity totals combined which would fall into the example of “lets focus on the main 90%”. If the share of charities that are not covered by Maslows L1 is smaller than like 80ish percent then the approach would need to be changed. I have no idea how to search for that data. I would think that the items listed would cover 90ish percent of I could be way off though and am curious is there is a way to find that out.
Thank you for this. With this post you answered one of the two of my very first questions to you. My question to you was:
Who is going to be the ongoing arbitrator of the list of “approved causes”?
Your answer: “Me”
Do you think that is a realistic approach for determining which charitable contributions should not be taxed?