EA orgs don’t have Australian tax deductibility, but I think we could probably give through this system too. Aussies could give to an EA expense which can’t be claimed on tax such as;
Expenses incurred through running a GWWC chapter—hiring a lecture hall, food, copies of an EA book etc
In exchange, a partner could give to an EA org which they can get tax deducibility on of the Aussie’s choice.
Without allocating them specifically, the gains from trade in this instance will only go to the person who gives to the org and gets a tax deduction; splitting this up would incentivise Aussies to get involved in trading. Brian Tomasik suggests a 50⁄50 split.
Most of the concerns raised above hold in this example, but can anyone think of a reason specific to this trade which is problematic? The main one I can see is that this would require some publicising for people to put EA expenses on the spreadsheet as well as EA donations. Another which might be stronger in this instance is the difficulty of Aussies trying to select the partner with the best tax deduction.
I’ve put my name and contact details on the spreadsheet and pending no-one thinking of a good reason this is a bad idea, I’m happy for people to contact me to get in touch with Aussie donors initially. There will be more than $10 000 available at the Australian end for these trades.
That should work in theory. It may be hard to find large enough non-deductible spending—I’d recommend contacting Paul and Katja directly. The unusually large gap in the size of tax-deductibility (e.g. 0% in Oz, 25% in the UK) may also put off traders who value what you want to give to much less.
EA orgs don’t have Australian tax deductibility, but I think we could probably give through this system too. Aussies could give to an EA expense which can’t be claimed on tax such as;
Expenses incurred through running a GWWC chapter—hiring a lecture hall, food, copies of an EA book etc
mhpage’s offer to print EA handbooks (I would imagine)
Paul and Katja’s grant experimental EA funding (I would imagine)
In exchange, a partner could give to an EA org which they can get tax deducibility on of the Aussie’s choice.
Without allocating them specifically, the gains from trade in this instance will only go to the person who gives to the org and gets a tax deduction; splitting this up would incentivise Aussies to get involved in trading. Brian Tomasik suggests a 50⁄50 split.
Most of the concerns raised above hold in this example, but can anyone think of a reason specific to this trade which is problematic? The main one I can see is that this would require some publicising for people to put EA expenses on the spreadsheet as well as EA donations. Another which might be stronger in this instance is the difficulty of Aussies trying to select the partner with the best tax deduction.
I’ve put my name and contact details on the spreadsheet and pending no-one thinking of a good reason this is a bad idea, I’m happy for people to contact me to get in touch with Aussie donors initially. There will be more than $10 000 available at the Australian end for these trades.
That should work in theory. It may be hard to find large enough non-deductible spending—I’d recommend contacting Paul and Katja directly. The unusually large gap in the size of tax-deductibility (e.g. 0% in Oz, 25% in the UK) may also put off traders who value what you want to give to much less.
Also, I think that we can donate tax-deductibly to Oxford and Cambridge—based organizations like CSER and FHI.