I am perfectly content with private actors deciding how best to use their own money for philanthropic purposes. It leads to a more diverse set of approaches. If there are people that believe in one thing and others that believe the opposite they should both be allowed to fund what they think is right without a democratic majority stifling minority points of view.
I do not have a point of view on whether it is worthy of a tax break.
Not so much benevolent as accountable. The government, for all its faults, has a huge edifice of checks and balances, and while the gears grind slowly they do limit how far astray things can go. A private 503c is a real wild west in comparison.
If the government doesn't do a single thing I like, more than half my income still goes to taxes each year to fund the government (income, property, sales, etc.), and there is nothing I can realistically do to change that.
Which one is accountable?
Remind me. Who was fired for Waco? Who at the CDC was fired for stopping the Seattle Flu Study from testing for COVID, or for banning commercial labs from testing for it while their own lab reported all samples as positive because of contamination?
Can you back that up? I know people who were in poverty and very much support many of those programs as lifesavers. It's wealthier people, who have no experience of them, who I see disparaging them.
Also, the criticism is cliche - I haven't seen much evidence of it. While nothing is perfect, the civil service in most advanced countries, including the US, are not patronage jobs; they are protected from such hiring and firing corruption. I know civil servants and they did not get the job through patronage and take their public service and professionalism very seriously. It's very easy to smear all those people in a few words.
That doesn't really address the issue though, does it? Food stamps are better than nothing, but they do not in fact allow recipients to spend the assistance as they see fit.
It's fine to be in favor of social engineering programs, but it's not consistent to then complain that philanthropists' charity comes with strings attached. The government's charity does as well.
That's somewhat true as a description of the average government programme, but it's far more true as a description of the average 503c.
How does this argument work for other deductions that also allow you to "fund personal causes"? For instance, the IRS allows you to deduct interest paid on student loans. I can get student loans to study anything I want, and doing so is arguably used to to advance my "personal agenda" (eg. getting a phd in economics so I can work in a thinktank). Should I be worried that the action was a "reflection of their personal politics" and therefore not get a tax break for it?
Feel free to repeat this argument for other deductions that the IRS offers: https://www.irs.gov/credits-deductions-for-individuals
Like the complaints at Liga Chilena Contra la Epilepsia, they just have a Sugerencias y Reclamos book, which you can read (though they told me it is not for me to read). You can see for instance that they addressed one complaint they got a lot, which was the lack of cashiers, so in fact with their remodel five years ago they changed it completely so they now have up to 8 cashiers at a time, and short wait times. My favorite Chilean pharmacy, I'll repeat here the comment I left for that charity: "Un siete!"
They are wealthy people who have no experience or knowledge of what people without wealth need.
