I want to like this article, because it does make some nice (to my non-expert eyes) points about being more skeptical of private foundations and donor-advised funds. But it's hard to wade through all the vitriol about "genetic lottery winners and fake-tanned narcissists", the one-sentence-per-paragraph organization, the setting up and knocking down of a shrill strawman ("“How dare you? Charitable donations step-in where the government fails!”), and the pretty facile arguments against some of the donation categories ("$56 billion was given to help provide child services and family care, something that should probably be paid for by society").
But yeah, random private foundations seem suspicious.
Comments
I want to like this article, because it does make some nice (to my non-expert eyes) points about being more skeptical of private foundations and donor-advised funds. But it's hard to wade through all the vitriol about "genetic lottery winners and fake-tanned narcissists", the one-sentence-per-paragraph organization, the setting up and knocking down of a shrill strawman ("“How dare you? Charitable donations step-in where the government fails!”), and the pretty facile arguments against some of the donation categories ("$56 billion was given to help provide child services and family care, something that should probably be paid for by society").
But yeah, random private foundations seem suspicious.