A reason that is missing from the “contra” list: You could stay at a higher salary and donate the difference to a more cost-effective org than the one you work for.
I would expect that most people who work in EA do not work for the org that they consider to have the highest marginal impact for an additional dollar (although certainly some do).
Accepting a lower salary can be more tax-efficient than donating if the donation is not tax-deductible. But if you think that cost-effectiveness follows a power law, then its quite possible that there is an org is more than twice as cost-effectiveness than your current employer.
Although if you think the major funders do a good job at allocating resources, it seems that the marginal additional dollar at org X should be roughly equal in effectiveness as the marginal additional dollar at your org. Given that the tax disadvantage of earn-then-donate in the US will generally range from about 20% (SS + Medicare + state taxes; no federal income tax due to itemizing) to 42%,[1] you’d need to think the funders made at least a moderate miss to outweigh the loss in tax advantages. Moreover, your contributions to the more cost-effective org could be significantly funged, which would reduce the benefit of you making a better allocation decision.
A reason that is missing from the “contra” list: You could stay at a higher salary and donate the difference to a more cost-effective org than the one you work for.
I would expect that most people who work in EA do not work for the org that they consider to have the highest marginal impact for an additional dollar (although certainly some do).
Accepting a lower salary can be more tax-efficient than donating if the donation is not tax-deductible. But if you think that cost-effectiveness follows a power law, then its quite possible that there is an org is more than twice as cost-effectiveness than your current employer.
Although if you think the major funders do a good job at allocating resources, it seems that the marginal additional dollar at org X should be roughly equal in effectiveness as the marginal additional dollar at your org. Given that the tax disadvantage of earn-then-donate in the US will generally range from about 20% (SS + Medicare + state taxes; no federal income tax due to itemizing) to 42%,[1] you’d need to think the funders made at least a moderate miss to outweigh the loss in tax advantages. Moreover, your contributions to the more cost-effective org could be significantly funged, which would reduce the benefit of you making a better allocation decision.
I’m assuming that anyone in a marginal bracket over the 22% bracket is itemizing.