🤔Philanthropy “defines the American spirit”?
True generosity doesn’t demand a receipt
By the time you finish reading this, thousands of philanthropic acts will have taken place across America—none of them motivated by tax deductions, media coverage, or legacy-building.
Every single day, ordinary folks show up for their neighbors: the ones who check on elderly residents during a blackout, bring meals to a grieving family, or watch kids so working parents can catch a breath. These acts—small but profound—are the purest form of philanthropy: the voluntary effort to increase the well-being of humankind. No strings attached.
Yet, in what can only be described as a masterclass in irony, Robert James Nicholson, board member of the Colorado-based Daniels Fund, recently penned a Wall Street Journal op-ed lamenting how proposed tax increases on private foundations “would discourage the philanthropy that has long defined the American spirit.”
Ah yes—the old, “If you don’t subsidize my generosity, I might not be generous” defense. How inspiring.
The Gov’t vs. Philanthropy Myth
Nicholson’s opening line—”America’s greatest safety net isn’t the government—it’s generosity”—ignores a larger truth. Unlike billionaire-funded foundations, which answer to no one, public institutions are, at least theoretically, accountable to constituents. The myth that government is some bloated, incompetent monolith is a convenient fiction for those who’d rather write checks than pay taxes.
In reality, our greatest safety nets are ensured by government, not philanthropy. Nearly 80 million Americans rely on Medicaid for their healthcare. 42 million people (more than 12% of the country) rely on SNAP for food security. Nearly 5 million households rely on Section 8 to keep a roof over their heads. These are not numbers philanthropy can meaningfully compete with or replace.
Amidst D.O.G.E. cuts, we’d be wise to counter bogus arguments like Nicholsons’ by remembering that government is the postal worker delivering meds to veterans in rural Wyoming. It’s the public libraries where kids discover their love of reading, the national parks where families make memories, and the food safety inspectors ensuring your burger isn’t laced with E. coli.
None of these are acts of charity, nor should they be. These are governmental functions that provide the baseline of a functioning society.
What I’m trying to say is that there is a real scandal happening, but it isn’t a conspiratorial “deep state”. It’s the fact that if the ultra-wealthy just paid their fair share, we wouldn’t need performative philanthropy. Public goods would be fully funded.
But hey, why fund public education when you can slap your name on an opera house, amiright?
Bare-Minimum Charity
Let’s not forget where philanthropy’s wealth originates. As abolitionist scholar Ruth Wilson-Gilmore aptly notes, “foundations are repositories of twice-stolen wealth.” In other words, the money flowing into endowments is extracted from underpaid workers and then sheltered from taxes before it’s repackaged as benevolence that befits the benefactors.
And to top it off, most foundations cap their giving at the amount at which they’re required to give in order to receive a tax break. What should be the bare minimum of charitable obligation has become the ceiling.
The Philanthropy Needed Now
As I’ve stated elsewhere, our sector’s obsession with battling this one narrow piece of the tax bill (the increased excise tax on foundations) is a terrible distraction. Yes, this provision of the bill has been dropped, but the bill has a long way to go, and it could get reinstated by the House. If it does, it shouldn’t continue to be philanthropy’s primary focus.
So, what should we be doing instead? As David Callahan argues in Inside Philanthropy, foundations should use our newly developed coordinating tables to stop playing defense and help communities get on the offense.
Yes, we’re seeing some good “block” strategies (litigation, mobilization), but how can we better resource building a vision and coalition that resonates with and unifies everyday Americans struggling to access housing, food security, healthcare, and dignified work?
These issues of economic security must take center stage first and foremost, because making material progress on any of these fronts will save lives and alleviate untold suffering. Too, these issues cast a big tent across the divisions that tend to fracture efforts to build progressive power at scale. Finding, naming, and amplifying points of unity on these issues will go a long way to ensuring a good life for all the people who live here.
Callahan urges funders to “spend whatever it takes” to push back against policies that deepen inequality and “help chart a new way forward, focusing squarely on the quest to create shared prosperity, which has historically been the strongest cornerstone of a majoritarian liberal politics.”
Now that would be a philanthropic spirit worth celebrating.
Generosity Without Strings
The truth is that real generosity doesn’t need a tax break or demand applause.
Working-class Americans prove this every day. They give because they see need and respond—not because they expect a dedication. If the wealthiest among us can’t do the same without financial incentives, then maybe it’s time to stop calling it philanthropy.
Maybe it’s just business.