Your table is very similar to the one Peter Singer presents close to the end of The Life You Can Save. I do like the mathematically clarity of your approach, and we now have an intuitive explanation for where the numbers come from—very nice!
Honestly, now that I write this it seems strange that there is no Pledge that matches this way of thinking? Your suggestion could be a nice complement to the existing 10% and Further Pledge and it now seems a little strange that I have not heard about people actively donating according to Singer’s table. Maybe it is just a lot harder to explain than the other pledges, and this kind of defeats the point of a public pledge?
In case someone else wonders what the donation rate would look like for other choices of γ:
I think a pledge which puts the bar for zero donations at the US-median income [edit: oops, I got that wrong and it is not the median income value. I still think that my point is directionally right] is a little strange – even in the US, many pledgers would never reach non-zero pledged donations and this seems off for a pledge that has income-sensitivity as a central property. Intuitively, a softer rule like “in any case, aim for 1% donations unless you really need all income” or a different reference for the zero-donations bar would be more wholesome.
The appendix of the ebook (pdf, p. 218 & 221) suggests structuring it like tax brackets, giving (as a percentage of adjusted gross income):
1% of the first $81,000, 5% of the next $59,000, 10% of the next $180,000, 15% of the next $160,000, 20% of the next $1,520,000, 25% of the next $9,000,000, 33.3% of the next $42,000,000, and 50% of the remainder
Thanks! I somehow managed to miss their pledge when looking at their website.
It does seem to be somewhat different from e.g. the 10% pledge: At least according to the current formulation, it is not a public or lifetime pledge but rather a one-year commitment:
This coming year, I pledge to give [percentage field] of my income to organizations effectively helping people in extreme poverty.
As an approach, this sounds very reasonable for TLYCS. I imagine that a lifetime pledge that adjusts to one’s income level is something that is harder to emotionally resonate with and might feel like too-large a commitment for many.
And recommitting to the pledge yearly might make it easy for people to adjust their giving to their current income without needing to think about the maths.
Your table is very similar to the one Peter Singer presents close to the end of The Life You Can Save. I do like the mathematically clarity of your approach, and we now have an intuitive explanation for where the numbers come from—very nice!
Honestly, now that I write this it seems strange that there is no Pledge that matches this way of thinking? Your suggestion could be a nice complement to the existing 10% and Further Pledge and it now seems a little strange that I have not heard about people actively donating according to Singer’s table. Maybe it is just a lot harder to explain than the other pledges, and this kind of defeats the point of a public pledge?
In case someone else wonders what the donation rate would look like for other choices of γ:
I think a pledge which puts the bar for zero donations at
the US-median income[edit: oops, I got that wrong and it is not the median income value. I still think that my point is directionally right] is a little strange – even in the US, many pledgers would never reach non-zero pledged donations and this seems off for a pledge that has income-sensitivity as a central property. Intuitively, a softer rule like “in any case, aim for 1% donations unless you really need all income” or a different reference for the zero-donations bar would be more wholesome.TLYCS’s own pledge is progressive with income, for what it’s worth https://www.thelifeyoucansave.org/take-the-pledge/
Is there a formula for the pledge somewhere? I couldn’t find one.
The appendix of the ebook (pdf, p. 218 & 221) suggests structuring it like tax brackets, giving (as a percentage of adjusted gross income):
yeah not sure unfortunately!
Thanks! I somehow managed to miss their pledge when looking at their website.
It does seem to be somewhat different from e.g. the 10% pledge: At least according to the current formulation, it is not a public or lifetime pledge but rather a one-year commitment:
As an approach, this sounds very reasonable for TLYCS. I imagine that a lifetime pledge that adjusts to one’s income level is something that is harder to emotionally resonate with and might feel like too-large a commitment for many. And recommitting to the pledge yearly might make it easy for people to adjust their giving to their current income without needing to think about the maths.