Philanthropy

== Criticism ==
Philanthropy has been used by [[ultra high-net-worth individual]]s to offset their larger [[tax]] liabilities through [[Charitable contribution deductions in the United States|charitable contribution deductions]] enabled by the [[Tax law|tax code]]. In the book ''[[Winners Take All: The Elite Charade of Changing the World]]'' by [[Anand Giridharadas]], he asserts that various philanthropic initiatives by the wealthy [[elite]] in practice function to entrench the [[power structure]]s and [[Advocacy group|special interests]] of the wealthy elite.<ref>{{Cite web|first=David|last=Kwan|date=2019-12-05|title=Binah: Anand Giridharadas on the Fallacy of Billionaire Philanthropy|url=https://www.kalw.org/show/binah/2019-12-05/binah-anand-giridharadas-on-the-fallacy-of-billionaire-philanthropy|access-date=2021-11-15|website=KALW|language=en}}</ref> For example, despite [[Robert F. Smith (investor)|Robert F. Smith]]'s generosity by paying off the student debt incurred by the [[Morehouse College|Morehouse]] class of 2019, he simultaneously fought against changes to the tax code that could have made more money available to help [[Educational inequality|low-income students]] pay for [[college]]. As a result, Giridharadas argues, Smith's philanthropic giving functions to reinforce the prevailing [[status quo]] and perpetuates [[Economic inequality|income inequality]], instead of addressing the root cause of social issues.<ref>{{Cite web|last=Campbell|first=David|date=2021-06-10|title=A new reason Americans are getting leery of billionaire donors|url=https://theconversation.com/a-new-reason-americans-are-getting-leery-of-billionaire-donors-162409|access-date=2021-11-15|website=The Conversation|language=en}}</ref>

The ability of wealthy people to deduct a significant amount of their tax liabilities in the form of philanthropic giving, as noted by the late German billionaire shipping magnate and philanthropist Peter Kramer, functioned as "a bad transfer of power", from [[Democracy|democratically]] elected politicians to unelected [[billionaire]]s, whereby it is no longer "the state that determines what is good for the people, but rather the rich who decide". The [[Global Policy Forum]], an independent policy watchdog which functions to monitor the activities of the [[United Nations General Assembly]], warned governments and international organisations that they should "assess the growing influence of major philanthropic foundations, and especially the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation… and analyse the intended and unintended risks and side-effects of their activities" prior to accepting money from rich donors. In 2015, Global Policy Forum also warned elected politicians that they should be particularly concerned about "the unpredictable and insufficient financing of [[Public good (economics)|public goods]], the lack of [[Monitoring and evaluation|monitoring]] and [[accountability]] mechanisms, and the prevailing practice of applying business logic to the provision of public goods".<ref>{{Cite web|first=Paul|last=Vallely|date=2020-09-08|title=How philanthropy benefits the super-rich|url=http://www.theguardian.com/society/2020/sep/08/how-philanthropy-benefits-the-super-rich|access-date=2021-11-15|website=the Guardian|language=en}}</ref>

Giridharadas also argues that philanthropy [[Distraction|distracts]] the public from some of the ill-gotten gains that were derived via [[Profit (economics)|profit]]. For example, the [[Sackler family]] were known for their generous philanthropic giving to various [[cultural institution]]s worldwide. However, their philanthropic giving functioned as [[deception]] and [[propaganda]], as their legacy of [[generosity]] was tainted by the subsequent exposure of [[Purdue Pharma]]'s role in encouraging and exacerbating the [[opioid epidemic]].<ref name=":1">{{Cite web|last=Livni|first=Ephrat|title=Here's what's wrong with letting wealthy people solve the world's problems|url=https://qz.com/1586242/in-winners-take-all-anand-giridharadas-shows-whats-wrong-with-doing-well-by-doing-good/|access-date=2021-11-15|website=Quartz|date=7 April 2019 |language=en}}</ref> As a result of their exposed ill-gotten gains from the [[social issue]]s caused by the philanthropic donors, the British institutions of the [[National Portrait Gallery, London]] and the [[Tate]], along with the American institution [[Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum]], announced their rejection of charitable giving from the Sackler family trusts.<ref name=":1" />