Re: greater utility tomorrow argument: then taken to the extreme, your fund should not go to charity when you die but continue to grow until mankind can realistically forecast the end of the world at which point the fund (now an enormous asset) can be directed to improve the lives the least well-off of the last citizens of the world. My real criticism is the implicit notion that the future value of utility (because of the inside buildup of your bequest) is greater than the present value of that bequest.
On 6/6/03 12:49 PM, "Wei Dai" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Fri, Jun 06, 2003 at 09:29:34AM -0400, Richard L. white wrote: >> Ignoring the utility of the money to the target charity today, e.g., >> food or medicine to live, > > But the money will have a greater utility tomorrow (since there will be > more of it). Unless you think there will be less needy people in the > future? > >> the money value of the PV should also be reduced >> by the tax benefit you have forgone by not making the donation today. > > Well, that's true. But over the long run the PV is still greater if I hold > on to the money. Also, if my argument is correct, government policy should > be changed to take it into account. For example, one should be able to > obtain tax benefits for putting money into an individual charity account, > similar to the way IRAs work.
