It's being called "trust-based philanthropy". The fact that this is so rare and subversive should cure libs of their idea that charity is selfless and not just another vector for the wealthy to exert control.
It's being called "trust-based philanthropy". The fact that this is so rare and subversive should cure libs of their idea that charity is selfless and not just another vector for the wealthy to exert control.
“trust-based philanthropy”, Jesus Christ. Imagine that coming out of your mouth and not thinking, "are we the baddies?"
Correct me if I have misunderstood the terminology. But isn't the point of a trust to prevent a single person from making all the decisions with it, like an investor? Working within the current system is always going to benefit the billionaire class (broadly speaking). It seems like she just happens to fall in that category by default. I haven't done any looking into the specifics, but this seems like a not terrible thing. At worst, a net zero? I dunno? I've also just pulled a tube, so if I'm way off, please correct me.
:cat-vibing:
Sorry if I was not clear, I meant that using “trust-based philanthropy” to describe what she's doing reveals that "normal" philanthropy is all about control and is insufficient by design.
Edit: also, trust-based philanthropy doesn't mean that a trust oversees how the money it's used, it means the philanthropist trusts the charity to use the money well without putting strings on it.
Ahhhhh. And bob's yer uncle. Thanks comrade. o7