Where should my wealth go to fight inequality?
April 1, 2021 10:03 AM Subscribe
I believe inheritance is one of the primary factors that maintains and deepens wealth inequality and therefore all forms of inequality, so I want to do something different with my wealth, but what should that be?
I'm already working with an estate lawyer and we're setting up a trust which will provide financial security for my partner after I'm gone. Only after they die will the money in the trust be disbursed, so this could be many years in the future.
In general, I want my wealth to go towards making the lives of all people happier and more secure. I think it's society's responsibility to provide for at least the bottom two "basic needs" tiers of Maslow's hierarchy. Given this, it seems to me like maybe the most appropriate thing is to give the wealth in the trust to the government, but I'd be interested to hear arguments for or against that or suggestions of other strategies that would be consistent with my values.
I'm already working with an estate lawyer and we're setting up a trust which will provide financial security for my partner after I'm gone. Only after they die will the money in the trust be disbursed, so this could be many years in the future.
In general, I want my wealth to go towards making the lives of all people happier and more secure. I think it's society's responsibility to provide for at least the bottom two "basic needs" tiers of Maslow's hierarchy. Given this, it seems to me like maybe the most appropriate thing is to give the wealth in the trust to the government, but I'd be interested to hear arguments for or against that or suggestions of other strategies that would be consistent with my values.
If you want to want to work on problems within the USA I would donate it to a voting rights organization, especially ones focused on the state and local level. The transformation Virginia has gone through since turning blue is a perfect example of how much things can change if you get people voting. The amount of effort Republicans have put in to smash voting rights apart is another indicator of the fear an empowered populace strikes in the heart of assholes.
Otherwise, maybe research effective altruism or look into GiveWell? They're focused on figuring out where your dollars can do the most net good.
posted by Anonymous at 10:26 AM on April 1, 2021
Otherwise, maybe research effective altruism or look into GiveWell? They're focused on figuring out where your dollars can do the most net good.
posted by Anonymous at 10:26 AM on April 1, 2021
Response by poster: Maybe I should've been more explicit in my original question, but donating to specific charities will be tricky in this case because the trust likely won't be disbursed for another 50–70 years.
I donate to voting rights orgs now, but I don't think that makes sense for this.
What I'm really most interested in is whether there's a compelling reason not to give wealth back to the government.
posted by Cogito at 10:32 AM on April 1, 2021
I donate to voting rights orgs now, but I don't think that makes sense for this.
What I'm really most interested in is whether there's a compelling reason not to give wealth back to the government.
posted by Cogito at 10:32 AM on April 1, 2021
Trust yourself. The government may not be very different than you (it's just a collection of people, also trying).
Why would donating to the government be much different than donating to a well founded or reputable organization, now? (Perhaps in 50 years)
Especially after watching the maintenance of the pandemic. There are many private organizations who handle themselves with more stability at the moment.
Perhaps it might be insightful to ask the same question in 15 years, if you have time to make changes.
posted by firstdaffodils at 10:36 AM on April 1, 2021
Why would donating to the government be much different than donating to a well founded or reputable organization, now? (Perhaps in 50 years)
Especially after watching the maintenance of the pandemic. There are many private organizations who handle themselves with more stability at the moment.
Perhaps it might be insightful to ask the same question in 15 years, if you have time to make changes.
posted by firstdaffodils at 10:36 AM on April 1, 2021
It's entirely possible to give your wealth back to the government. You can do so here.
However, I'll note the explicit caveat on the page - the US government will only take unconditional gifts. Hence, you can roughly assume that your money will be spent proportionately to existing spending and support taxation policies roughly commensurate with existing policies. Your money won't influence US policy. Right now, the US government (in my opinion) does relatively little to reduce wealth inequality. In particular, there is no significant inheritance taxes to prevent multi-generational accumulation of wealth.
I think I have a higher likelihood of changing the US government by donating to other organizations that are devoted to influencing US policy. Although those organizations aren't necessarily successful, there is a higher chance of them succeeding, in my opinion, than supporting the US government by donating money to it. Hence, I don't list the US government as a beneficiary in my will.
Certainly, political circumstances can change, and there's no reason you can't change your beneficiaries over time as you become more or less trusting of the US government.
posted by saeculorum at 10:40 AM on April 1, 2021 [3 favorites]
However, I'll note the explicit caveat on the page - the US government will only take unconditional gifts. Hence, you can roughly assume that your money will be spent proportionately to existing spending and support taxation policies roughly commensurate with existing policies. Your money won't influence US policy. Right now, the US government (in my opinion) does relatively little to reduce wealth inequality. In particular, there is no significant inheritance taxes to prevent multi-generational accumulation of wealth.
I think I have a higher likelihood of changing the US government by donating to other organizations that are devoted to influencing US policy. Although those organizations aren't necessarily successful, there is a higher chance of them succeeding, in my opinion, than supporting the US government by donating money to it. Hence, I don't list the US government as a beneficiary in my will.
Certainly, political circumstances can change, and there's no reason you can't change your beneficiaries over time as you become more or less trusting of the US government.
posted by saeculorum at 10:40 AM on April 1, 2021 [3 favorites]
Give Directly is not perfect, but they're a one of the best option I know of. And they will probably be even better in 50-70 years.
posted by aniola at 10:41 AM on April 1, 2021 [1 favorite]
posted by aniola at 10:41 AM on April 1, 2021 [1 favorite]
Given this, it seems to me like maybe the most appropriate thing is to give the wealth in the trust to the government, but I'd be interested to hear arguments for or against that or suggestions of other strategies that would be consistent with my values.
I'm confused by this statement, maybe you could elaborate? The federal government doesn't need your money and would not be spending it reducing inequality because maintaining inequality is at the base of capitalism. Witness the well-meaning (mostly) Biden team being unable to really push the minimum wage increases or student loan forgiveness. Or, rather, it's a hard problem not a simple one, but money isn't the problem.
You could always direct your executor to find charities that address a specific need you've identified (like, yes, voting rights) which will be able to help people more directly. More to the point, depending on your level of wealth, once you've taken care of your own needs, you might consider spending down some of your wealth now and addressing needs in your local and national and international communities right now, a la Mackenzie Bezos.
posted by jessamyn at 10:43 AM on April 1, 2021 [7 favorites]
I'm confused by this statement, maybe you could elaborate? The federal government doesn't need your money and would not be spending it reducing inequality because maintaining inequality is at the base of capitalism. Witness the well-meaning (mostly) Biden team being unable to really push the minimum wage increases or student loan forgiveness. Or, rather, it's a hard problem not a simple one, but money isn't the problem.
You could always direct your executor to find charities that address a specific need you've identified (like, yes, voting rights) which will be able to help people more directly. More to the point, depending on your level of wealth, once you've taken care of your own needs, you might consider spending down some of your wealth now and addressing needs in your local and national and international communities right now, a la Mackenzie Bezos.
posted by jessamyn at 10:43 AM on April 1, 2021 [7 favorites]
Best answer: Yes, the most direct way to offset material inequality is to give money to the poorest people in the world. GiveDirectly does this, which is why I support them with my donations. (See also their blog, where recipients describe what they did with the funds. For example, "GiveDirectly has uplifted my living standard from a mudwalled house to a timber walled modern house.")
It is large and growing so is likely to be around for many years, but you should work with your estate lawyer to specify what would happen if they are not. It seems that you could have a backup list and/or allow the executor to do their best to find a similar organization.
posted by Mr.Know-it-some at 10:51 AM on April 1, 2021 [7 favorites]
It is large and growing so is likely to be around for many years, but you should work with your estate lawyer to specify what would happen if they are not. It seems that you could have a backup list and/or allow the executor to do their best to find a similar organization.
posted by Mr.Know-it-some at 10:51 AM on April 1, 2021 [7 favorites]
Best answer: I would give it to a progressive university to create a scholarship fund for Indigenous or Black students, the descendants of the people the government screwed over the worst.
posted by nouvelle-personne at 10:53 AM on April 1, 2021 [9 favorites]
posted by nouvelle-personne at 10:53 AM on April 1, 2021 [9 favorites]
I believe inheritance is one of the primary factors that maintains and deepens wealth inequality and therefore all forms of inequality, so I want to do something different with my wealth, but what should that be?
You could direct your estate to give to political organizations that lobby for a strong inheritance tax. If by some miracle a sufficiently effective inheritance tax is in place by the time you and your partner are deceased, then your estate plan can provide for alternative beneficiaries.
posted by jedicus at 10:55 AM on April 1, 2021
You could direct your estate to give to political organizations that lobby for a strong inheritance tax. If by some miracle a sufficiently effective inheritance tax is in place by the time you and your partner are deceased, then your estate plan can provide for alternative beneficiaries.
posted by jedicus at 10:55 AM on April 1, 2021
Response by poster:
Thanks for the additional suggestions! These are some great ideas that I hadn't considered before.
posted by Cogito at 11:00 AM on April 1, 2021 [2 favorites]
Why would donating to the government be much different than donating to a well founded or reputable organization, now? (Perhaps in 50 years)The government is the only entity I can think of that I see as generally responsible for all the different aspects of human welfare (health, security, housing, infrastructure, etc.) and which is likely to endure far into the future.
Perhaps it might be insightful to ask the same question in 15 years, if you have time to make changes.This will definitely be something I review periodically, but I'd like to do my best to get something reasonable in place should I get hit by a bus or something.
Your money won't influence US policyTrue, and that's not really my goal here. If I was confident I knew what the most important thing to support in 50 years was, then I could just do that, but I'm trying to keep my perspective broad while planning so far out.
The federal government doesn't need your moneyI'm not sure what you mean. The government collects taxes because it needs revenue, right? I know my personal choice isn't going to meaningfully change the overall inequality in the system or the basic issues with capitalism, but when I compare the value of the work of charities compared to governmental programs like Medicaid/Medicare, SNAP, HeadStart, etc., it seems like government has the most power for meaningful good at a broad scale far into the future.
Thanks for the additional suggestions! These are some great ideas that I hadn't considered before.
posted by Cogito at 11:00 AM on April 1, 2021 [2 favorites]
I guess the issue with donating to the Government is that you have no control over who will be in power when you die. Would you have been happy for your entire estate to have gone to the Trump administration to further its aims?
By opting for a charity and revisiting every few years in case they cease to exist, you have a little more control over the direction in which your money changes the world.
posted by penguin pie at 11:09 AM on April 1, 2021 [9 favorites]
By opting for a charity and revisiting every few years in case they cease to exist, you have a little more control over the direction in which your money changes the world.
posted by penguin pie at 11:09 AM on April 1, 2021 [9 favorites]
The government can literally print its own money if it wants to. Trust me, they are just fine.
If the goal is to make some individuals lives immensely better, then some of the above organizations like GiveDirectly (or other charities) will certainly do this.
However if the goal is to "fight inequality", count me among the many who firmly believe that this will only be done at the systemic level over the next few decades by dismantling capitalism, plain and simple.
So look, maybe it's not your cup of tea, but here's my pitch so you have an even more diverse plate of options to choose from: I'll suggest that you consider donating to socialist organizations that are explicitly working to fight capitalism. The DSA is one of the biggest and most rapidly growing ones, and they are not a political party, but sometimes endorse and run candidates on the Democratic Party line if they are sufficiently anti-capitalist enough (think AOC, Jamal Bowman, and a growing handful of others at the federal/state/municipal level who are unapolegitcally proposing radical policies to fight inequality). They also mobilize and organize to create national consensus and support for policies like The Pro Act (more and stronger unions = less inequality!) and Medicare for All (universal healthcare = less poor people going broke for health reasons!), to name a few examples.
Socialist organizations like this understand that they will not flip the USA into a utopia overnight - the more realistic goal is to build a movement and a real infrastructure that can actually put pressure on the system - political or otherwise - the same way socialists used to build pressure and form coalitions to fight for unions and The New Deal back in the day. So that's my suggestion if fighting inequality is the goal and you'd like an alternative to "the government" or "charity".
posted by windbox at 11:25 AM on April 1, 2021 [8 favorites]
If the goal is to make some individuals lives immensely better, then some of the above organizations like GiveDirectly (or other charities) will certainly do this.
However if the goal is to "fight inequality", count me among the many who firmly believe that this will only be done at the systemic level over the next few decades by dismantling capitalism, plain and simple.
So look, maybe it's not your cup of tea, but here's my pitch so you have an even more diverse plate of options to choose from: I'll suggest that you consider donating to socialist organizations that are explicitly working to fight capitalism. The DSA is one of the biggest and most rapidly growing ones, and they are not a political party, but sometimes endorse and run candidates on the Democratic Party line if they are sufficiently anti-capitalist enough (think AOC, Jamal Bowman, and a growing handful of others at the federal/state/municipal level who are unapolegitcally proposing radical policies to fight inequality). They also mobilize and organize to create national consensus and support for policies like The Pro Act (more and stronger unions = less inequality!) and Medicare for All (universal healthcare = less poor people going broke for health reasons!), to name a few examples.
Socialist organizations like this understand that they will not flip the USA into a utopia overnight - the more realistic goal is to build a movement and a real infrastructure that can actually put pressure on the system - political or otherwise - the same way socialists used to build pressure and form coalitions to fight for unions and The New Deal back in the day. So that's my suggestion if fighting inequality is the goal and you'd like an alternative to "the government" or "charity".
posted by windbox at 11:25 AM on April 1, 2021 [8 favorites]
Another vote for giving to different orgs that address climate change. No matter what happens between now and 50 years from now, it will likely still be an issue. Climate change disproportionately impacts marginalized communities, nationally and internationally. I see you're hesitant about giving to specific charities since they might not be around in 50 years, but could you set up a ranked list so that way if your top choice isn't around, it can go to #2, and so on?
posted by coffeecat at 11:38 AM on April 1, 2021 [4 favorites]
posted by coffeecat at 11:38 AM on April 1, 2021 [4 favorites]
The government is the only entity I can think of that I see as generally responsible for all the different aspects of human welfare (health, security, housing, infrastructure, etc.) and which is likely to endure far into the future.
This strikes me as a real generational thing. Today's young people have seen all the ways that statement just doesn't ring true (governments enduring? look around us, responsible for welfare? whose?).
I dont plan on having kids, but i am rapidly aging and its clearer than ever to me that today's youth need to be at the forefront of any hope we have of staving off killing ourselves with our love of environmentally disastrous capitalism. government functions as a wing of corporate donors in this regard, serving to undermine the efforts of people to create systems capable of sustaining themselves.
id figure out a way to give it to radical kids, is what im saying.
posted by Exceptional_Hubris at 11:44 AM on April 1, 2021 [5 favorites]
This strikes me as a real generational thing. Today's young people have seen all the ways that statement just doesn't ring true (governments enduring? look around us, responsible for welfare? whose?).
I dont plan on having kids, but i am rapidly aging and its clearer than ever to me that today's youth need to be at the forefront of any hope we have of staving off killing ourselves with our love of environmentally disastrous capitalism. government functions as a wing of corporate donors in this regard, serving to undermine the efforts of people to create systems capable of sustaining themselves.
id figure out a way to give it to radical kids, is what im saying.
posted by Exceptional_Hubris at 11:44 AM on April 1, 2021 [5 favorites]
I would never in a million zillion years give money to the US or Canadian government and expect them to disburse it with any kind of social conscience whatsoever! I'm actually shocked so many people in this thread think that's viable. Look at how inequitably funded schools are! There's no clean drinking water in Flint MI or in Canadian First Nations communities! Look who gets tax breaks! The government consistently loves to pay for policing brown-skinned people. My goodness.
posted by nouvelle-personne at 12:50 PM on April 1, 2021 [5 favorites]
posted by nouvelle-personne at 12:50 PM on April 1, 2021 [5 favorites]
Best answer: My thoughts, as a US citizen, is that the government performs many, many different functions. i believe that if you give them money, it goes into the general treasury and gets disbursed in accordance with the existing approved budget. It is unlikely, unless you are very wealthy, that your money would encourage them to allocate extra for certain projects. (Unless there is a way to create some kind of trust mechanism that I don't know about.)
My personal preference would be to choose a number of different organization that do work that I highly value and that seem to have the potential to be enduring. You can then update that list during your lifetime. I would also give my partner the ability to adjust the percentages during their lifetime (since they might outlive me by two decades or more) or even allow them to redirect some of the money to other legit nonprofits, possibly up to a certain percentage of the estate.
For example, I might start with a list of six organizations that I trust and want to support with each getting an equal share. I can change that list and the relative shares during my lifetime by changing that specific addendum to the trust. After i die, I give my partner the ability to change the shares that each of the six will eventually receive. If a charity has completely gone out of business, then their share just automatically gets redistributed but if the charity has changed focus or management styles or become associated with objectional values after my death, I want my partner to be able to redirect the money to my other charities.(Obviously I trust my partner to use their judgement and to act in way consistent with what they think I would have wanted.)
Depending the relationship with the partner, if you want them to feel some ownership over where the money goes, you might also allow them to add new charities to the list after you die, perhaps with the limit that at least x% still has to go the original six charities.
posted by metahawk at 1:59 PM on April 1, 2021
My personal preference would be to choose a number of different organization that do work that I highly value and that seem to have the potential to be enduring. You can then update that list during your lifetime. I would also give my partner the ability to adjust the percentages during their lifetime (since they might outlive me by two decades or more) or even allow them to redirect some of the money to other legit nonprofits, possibly up to a certain percentage of the estate.
For example, I might start with a list of six organizations that I trust and want to support with each getting an equal share. I can change that list and the relative shares during my lifetime by changing that specific addendum to the trust. After i die, I give my partner the ability to change the shares that each of the six will eventually receive. If a charity has completely gone out of business, then their share just automatically gets redistributed but if the charity has changed focus or management styles or become associated with objectional values after my death, I want my partner to be able to redirect the money to my other charities.(Obviously I trust my partner to use their judgement and to act in way consistent with what they think I would have wanted.)
Depending the relationship with the partner, if you want them to feel some ownership over where the money goes, you might also allow them to add new charities to the list after you die, perhaps with the limit that at least x% still has to go the original six charities.
posted by metahawk at 1:59 PM on April 1, 2021
Finding a way to give it to individual people who need it is, in my opinion, the best way to make a real difference in anyone's life. Capitalism is hell. If you're really bent on giving it to a governmental entity, then at least go local so it has a chance to be more than just a drop in an ocean's worth of capital.
posted by augustimagination at 2:23 PM on April 1, 2021 [1 favorite]
posted by augustimagination at 2:23 PM on April 1, 2021 [1 favorite]
You’re not the only person with inherited wealth thinking about this. You might find some useful information and/or community through Resource Generation: https://resourcegeneration.org/
posted by overglow at 3:27 PM on April 1, 2021 [4 favorites]
posted by overglow at 3:27 PM on April 1, 2021 [4 favorites]
Came in to suggest Resource Generation, but I see overglow beat me to it! :)
posted by aka burlap at 4:19 PM on April 1, 2021 [1 favorite]
posted by aka burlap at 4:19 PM on April 1, 2021 [1 favorite]
Mr. DrGail and I are dealing with a similar situation, having put off re-doing our wills due to Covid. (And procrastination.) We are designating a percentage of our estate for a number of non-profits that align with our values and priorities, and making clear to whoever will manage our estate what our animating issues are so she can hone the list of charities accordingly when the time comes to distribute the money.
We have thought about establishing a donor-advised fund but ultimately both laziness and the lack of compelling tax-related reasons have stopped us from doing so. YMMV, of course. But it would be a way of demonstrating your evolving wishes until your deaths, and make it easier on whoever is designated to dispose of your estate in the manner you wish.
posted by DrGail at 5:17 PM on April 1, 2021
We have thought about establishing a donor-advised fund but ultimately both laziness and the lack of compelling tax-related reasons have stopped us from doing so. YMMV, of course. But it would be a way of demonstrating your evolving wishes until your deaths, and make it easier on whoever is designated to dispose of your estate in the manner you wish.
posted by DrGail at 5:17 PM on April 1, 2021
One of the other governmant-y options you could consider would be giving to the public schools in your area, especially if they tend to serve low-income students (e.g if a lot of more affluent kids tend to go to private schools), or maybe a scholarship for students from such a high school.
posted by DebetEsse at 6:06 PM on April 1, 2021 [3 favorites]
posted by DebetEsse at 6:06 PM on April 1, 2021 [3 favorites]
It is quite easy to find out the poorest zip codes in the US. Give directly to people living in those zip codes. Use addresses, rather than choosing individuals. This process has the greatest chance of undermining the oppressive power of generational without a significant portion of the money being redirected to middle level managers of non-profits or government functionaries.
posted by hworth at 7:16 PM on April 1, 2021 [1 favorite]
posted by hworth at 7:16 PM on April 1, 2021 [1 favorite]
Education is the best investment in the future. Pick a school, then set up a scholarship fund to help their students go to college, like this guy did. Heck, write to Stacy Abrams and ask her to name you a school.
posted by dum spiro spero at 2:43 AM on April 2, 2021
posted by dum spiro spero at 2:43 AM on April 2, 2021
You may find the work of Resource Generation interesting.
posted by oceano at 2:30 PM on April 2, 2021
posted by oceano at 2:30 PM on April 2, 2021
Assuming that you live in a developed country, wealth inequality does not exist because the government doesn't have enough money to fix it, but instead because there is a lack of political will to fix it. Even if you are Jeff Bezos your legacy will not by itself improve wealth inequality if you leave it to the government.
If you have substantial funds, I would look at whether you can create a trust with instructions that would allow the money to be distributed to the kinds of organisations you would like to support, even if the exact organisations might be different in the future.
posted by plonkee at 4:01 PM on April 2, 2021 [1 favorite]
If you have substantial funds, I would look at whether you can create a trust with instructions that would allow the money to be distributed to the kinds of organisations you would like to support, even if the exact organisations might be different in the future.
posted by plonkee at 4:01 PM on April 2, 2021 [1 favorite]
This thread is closed to new comments.
Consider charities that work to protect the arctic, the oceans, or the rainforests.
posted by Spacelegoman at 10:25 AM on April 1, 2021 [9 favorites]