Hide table of contents

TLDR/Context: In my Earning To Give journey, I found it psychologically easiest to increase my donations by tying them to any salary increases I received. Using this system, I increased my donations from 10% to over 25% in 7 years and never felt I lost something as I only donated a part of the additional salary I had now available. Eventually, I told Luke Freeman about the idea and, with the help of Alana Horowitz Friedman published this post on the Giving What We Can blog. I'm happy to answer any questions here in the Forum or via LinkedIn
Note: This approach can lead to a decrease in real (inflation-adjusted) income if the amount you keep from each salary increase is lower than the rate of inflation.


You’ve heard of progressive tax systems, but have you heard of a progressive pledge? While giving away 10% of income feels daunting for some, for others, it doesn’t feel like enough.

We spoke with Philip Popien, who took the 10% Pledge in 2016 after reading Doing Good Better. He’s been following an approach he’s termed the “progressive pledge,” whereby he gradually increases his pledged percentage upon any salary increase.

“The more you have, the more you can give away without even noticing it. Donating 10% feels like a large sacrifice for lower salaries, but is not even noticeable for large incomes, so for me, this approach follows naturally from the idea of decreasing marginal utility of money.”

When Philip read Doing Good Better in 2015, he noted down that his goal was to take the 10% Pledge immediately and then adjust that percentage upwards to 25% when his income rose. After following the “progressive pledge” approach for about 7 years, he’s exceeded that goal and in 2024, is up to 27.5%! 
 

Note

The progressive pledge approach doesn’t only have to be for those who want to give more than 10%! We’ve heard from people who have taken the Trial Pledge that gradually increasing their pledged percentage in conjunction with salary increases is a really helpful way to work up to giving more!


Here’s what Philip has to say about his “progressive pledge” approach to donating:

1. Can you explain how the “progressive pledge” approach works?

You start by donating 10%. Then, with any increase in salary, add 50% (or any other % above 10%) of the increase. The idea comes from Daniel Kahneman who wrote about doing the same thing with saving for retirement in Thinking Fast and Slow (if I remember correctly).
 

2. Why do you like this approach to donating?

  • It balances your altruistic and non-altruistic goals in life. I knew I wanted to eventually give more than 10%, but I also didn’t think it was realistic for me to take something like the Further Pledge, where you give everything away above what you need to live on. With the progressive pledge approach, an increase in salary still means being able to spend more on yourself than before even with the increase in pledge percentage.
  • It allows your altruistic ambitions to rise with you getting richer. As I mentioned before, donating 10% is a large sacrifice for lower salaries, but not even noticeable for large incomes.
  • It increases your donations a lot over time without you ever "losing" money. If you would first see that money as yours, spend it, and later think about how much you would like to donate, it is much harder as now you have to give the money away which triggers loss aversion.
  • It increases your motivation to negotiate well, since any salary increase means you get benefits not only for yourself, but for others as well.
     

3. Can you walk us through how this approach gradually increased your pledged percentage from 10% to 27.5%?

Sure! I started at 10% in 2016. My largest jump from 10% to 20% came from a job change, and then the incremental increases from 20% to 22% to 24% to 26% to 27.5% came from salary increases at the same job.
 

4. Would you recommend this way of pledging to others? In what circumstances?

Yes! I think a lot of people would like to donate more, but it feels painful to give away more and more. By giving away only from what you earn extra, it is easier to give more!
 

5. Do you think this approach to giving has increased your overall impact?

Definitely, as I have other monetary goals in life which made it hard to give away more. By coupling my job changes and promotions with increasing my donations, I never felt I lost something which made it possible to increase my donations from 10% to over 25% in 7 years.

Comments4


Sorted by Click to highlight new comments since:

Interesting idea!

  1. I recommend a different name, when I saw this I assumed it was about pledging around left wing causes

  2. I feel like the spirit of the pledge would be to increase the 10% part with inflation? If you get a pay raise in line with inflation it seems silly to have to give half of that, since your real take home pay is unchanged. Even the further pledge is inflation linked

Love this! I actually read this on the GWWC website a couple of weeks ago and increased my pledge from 10 -> 16.5% as a result. Thank you for the inspiration & your generosity! 

Interesting idea. Even more so than for the 10% pledge, it seems to me that this one should be based on after-tax income, since otherwise getting more income could leave you with less spending money.

Big fan of this idea and I already applied the principle to my bonuses. I've been thinking about things like a "luxury tax" (i.e. whenever I buy something for myself, I have to donate a certain percentage), but this approach seems much more stable and motivating in comparison.

Curated and popular this week
Paul Present
 ·  · 28m read
 · 
Note: I am not a malaria expert. This is my best-faith attempt at answering a question that was bothering me, but this field is a large and complex field, and I’ve almost certainly misunderstood something somewhere along the way. Summary While the world made incredible progress in reducing malaria cases from 2000 to 2015, the past 10 years have seen malaria cases stop declining and start rising. I investigated potential reasons behind this increase through reading the existing literature and looking at publicly available data, and I identified three key factors explaining the rise: 1. Population Growth: Africa's population has increased by approximately 75% since 2000. This alone explains most of the increase in absolute case numbers, while cases per capita have remained relatively flat since 2015. 2. Stagnant Funding: After rapid growth starting in 2000, funding for malaria prevention plateaued around 2010. 3. Insecticide Resistance: Mosquitoes have become increasingly resistant to the insecticides used in bednets over the past 20 years. This has made older models of bednets less effective, although they still have some effect. Newer models of bednets developed in response to insecticide resistance are more effective but still not widely deployed.  I very crudely estimate that without any of these factors, there would be 55% fewer malaria cases in the world than what we see today. I think all three of these factors are roughly equally important in explaining the difference.  Alternative explanations like removal of PFAS, climate change, or invasive mosquito species don't appear to be major contributors.  Overall this investigation made me more convinced that bednets are an effective global health intervention.  Introduction In 2015, malaria rates were down, and EAs were celebrating. Giving What We Can posted this incredible gif showing the decrease in malaria cases across Africa since 2000: Giving What We Can said that > The reduction in malaria has be
Rory Fenton
 ·  · 6m read
 · 
Cross-posted from my blog. Contrary to my carefully crafted brand as a weak nerd, I go to a local CrossFit gym a few times a week. Every year, the gym raises funds for a scholarship for teens from lower-income families to attend their summer camp program. I don’t know how many Crossfit-interested low-income teens there are in my small town, but I’ll guess there are perhaps 2 of them who would benefit from the scholarship. After all, CrossFit is pretty niche, and the town is small. Helping youngsters get swole in the Pacific Northwest is not exactly as cost-effective as preventing malaria in Malawi. But I notice I feel drawn to supporting the scholarship anyway. Every time it pops in my head I think, “My money could fully solve this problem”. The camp only costs a few hundred dollars per kid and if there are just 2 kids who need support, I could give $500 and there would no longer be teenagers in my town who want to go to a CrossFit summer camp but can’t. Thanks to me, the hero, this problem would be entirely solved. 100%. That is not how most nonprofit work feels to me. You are only ever making small dents in important problems I want to work on big problems. Global poverty. Malaria. Everyone not suddenly dying. But if I’m honest, what I really want is to solve those problems. Me, personally, solve them. This is a continued source of frustration and sadness because I absolutely cannot solve those problems. Consider what else my $500 CrossFit scholarship might do: * I want to save lives, and USAID suddenly stops giving $7 billion a year to PEPFAR. So I give $500 to the Rapid Response Fund. My donation solves 0.000001% of the problem and I feel like I have failed. * I want to solve climate change, and getting to net zero will require stopping or removing emissions of 1,500 billion tons of carbon dioxide. I give $500 to a policy nonprofit that reduces emissions, in expectation, by 50 tons. My donation solves 0.000000003% of the problem and I feel like I have f
LewisBollard
 ·  · 8m read
 · 
> How the dismal science can help us end the dismal treatment of farm animals By Martin Gould ---------------------------------------- Note: This post was crossposted from the Open Philanthropy Farm Animal Welfare Research Newsletter by the Forum team, with the author's permission. The author may not see or respond to comments on this post. ---------------------------------------- This year we’ll be sharing a few notes from my colleagues on their areas of expertise. The first is from Martin. I’ll be back next month. - Lewis In 2024, Denmark announced plans to introduce the world’s first carbon tax on cow, sheep, and pig farming. Climate advocates celebrated, but animal advocates should be much more cautious. When Denmark’s Aarhus municipality tested a similar tax in 2022, beef purchases dropped by 40% while demand for chicken and pork increased. Beef is the most emissions-intensive meat, so carbon taxes hit it hardest — and Denmark’s policies don’t even cover chicken or fish. When the price of beef rises, consumers mostly shift to other meats like chicken. And replacing beef with chicken means more animals suffer in worse conditions — about 190 chickens are needed to match the meat from one cow, and chickens are raised in much worse conditions. It may be possible to design carbon taxes which avoid this outcome; a recent paper argues that a broad carbon tax would reduce all meat production (although it omits impacts on egg or dairy production). But with cows ten times more emissions-intensive than chicken per kilogram of meat, other governments may follow Denmark’s lead — focusing taxes on the highest emitters while ignoring the welfare implications. Beef is easily the most emissions-intensive meat, but also requires the fewest animals for a given amount. The graph shows climate emissions per tonne of meat on the right-hand side, and the number of animals needed to produce a kilogram of meat on the left. The fish “lives lost” number varies significantly by