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.

22

0
0

Reactions

0
0

More posts like this

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
 ·  · 10m read
 · 
I wrote this to try to explain the key thing going on with AI right now to a broader audience. Feedback welcome. Most people think of AI as a pattern-matching chatbot – good at writing emails, terrible at real thinking. They've missed something huge. In 2024, while many declared AI was reaching a plateau, it was actually entering a new paradigm: learning to reason using reinforcement learning. This approach isn’t limited by data, so could deliver beyond-human capabilities in coding and scientific reasoning within two years. Here's a simple introduction to how it works, and why it's the most important development that most people have missed. The new paradigm: reinforcement learning People sometimes say “chatGPT is just next token prediction on the internet”. But that’s never been quite true. Raw next token prediction produces outputs that are regularly crazy. GPT only became useful with the addition of what’s called “reinforcement learning from human feedback” (RLHF): 1. The model produces outputs 2. Humans rate those outputs for helpfulness 3. The model is adjusted in a way expected to get a higher rating A model that’s under RLHF hasn’t been trained only to predict next tokens, it’s been trained to produce whatever output is most helpful to human raters. Think of the initial large language model (LLM) as containing a foundation of knowledge and concepts. Reinforcement learning is what enables that structure to be turned to a specific end. Now AI companies are using reinforcement learning in a powerful new way – training models to reason step-by-step: 1. Show the model a problem like a math puzzle. 2. Ask it to produce a chain of reasoning to solve the problem (“chain of thought”).[1] 3. If the answer is correct, adjust the model to be more like that (“reinforcement”).[2] 4. Repeat thousands of times. Before 2023 this didn’t seem to work. If each step of reasoning is too unreliable, then the chains quickly go wrong. Without getting close to co
 ·  · 1m read
 · 
JamesÖz
 ·  · 3m read
 · 
Why it’s important to fill out this consultation The UK Government is currently consulting on allowing insects to be fed to chickens and pigs. This is worrying as the government explicitly says changes would “enable investment in the insect protein sector”. Given the likely sentience of insects (see this summary of recent research), and that median predictions estimate that 3.9 trillion insects will be killed annually by 2030, we think it’s crucial to try to limit this huge source of animal suffering.  Overview * Link to complete the consultation: HERE. You can see the context of the consultation here. * How long it takes to fill it out: 5-10 minutes (5 questions total with only 1 of them requiring a written answer) * Deadline to respond: April 1st 2025 * What else you can do: Share the consultation document far and wide!  * You can use the UK Voters for Animals GPT to help draft your responses. * If you want to hear about other high-impact ways to use your political voice to help animals, sign up for the UK Voters for Animals newsletter. There is an option to be contacted only for very time-sensitive opportunities like this one, which we expect will happen less than 6 times a year. See guidance on submitting in a Google Doc Questions and suggested responses: It is helpful to have a lot of variation between responses. As such, please feel free to add your own reasoning for your responses or, in addition to animal welfare reasons for opposing insects as feed, include non-animal welfare reasons e.g., health implications, concerns about farming intensification, or the climate implications of using insects for feed.    Question 7 on the consultation: Do you agree with allowing poultry processed animal protein in porcine feed?  Suggested response: No (up to you if you want to elaborate further).  We think it’s useful to say no to all questions in the consultation, particularly as changing these rules means that meat producers can make more profit from sel
Recent opportunities in Career choice
63
· · 1m read
34