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
 ·  · 20m read
 · 
Advanced AI could unlock an era of enlightened and competent government action. But without smart, active investment, we’ll squander that opportunity and barrel blindly into danger. Executive summary See also a summary on Twitter / X. The US federal government is falling behind the private sector on AI adoption. As AI improves, a growing gap would leave the government unable to effectively respond to AI-driven existential challenges and threaten the legitimacy of its democratic institutions. A dual imperative → Government adoption of AI can’t wait. Making steady progress is critical to: * Boost the government’s capacity to effectively respond to AI-driven existential challenges * Help democratic oversight keep up with the technological power of other groups * Defuse the risk of rushed AI adoption in a crisis → But hasty AI adoption could backfire. Without care, integration of AI could: * Be exploited, subverting independent government action * Lead to unsafe deployment of AI systems * Accelerate arms races or compress safety research timelines Summary of the recommendations 1. Work with the US federal government to help it effectively adopt AI Simplistic “pro-security” or “pro-speed” attitudes miss the point. Both are important — and many interventions would help with both. We should: * Invest in win-win measures that both facilitate adoption and reduce the risks involved, e.g.: * Build technical expertise within government (invest in AI and technical talent, ensure NIST is well resourced) * Streamline procurement processes for AI products and related tech (like cloud services) * Modernize the government’s digital infrastructure and data management practices * Prioritize high-leverage interventions that have strong adoption-boosting benefits with minor security costs or vice versa, e.g.: * On the security side: investing in cyber security, pre-deployment testing of AI in high-stakes areas, and advancing research on mitigating the ris
 ·  · 15m read
 · 
In our recent strategy retreat, the GWWC Leadership Team recognised that by spreading our limited resources across too many projects, we are unable to deliver the level of excellence and impact that our mission demands. True to our value of being mission accountable, we've therefore made the difficult but necessary decision to discontinue a total of 10 initiatives. By focusing our energy on fewer, more strategically aligned initiatives, we think we’ll be more likely to ultimately achieve our Big Hairy Audacious Goal of 1 million pledgers donating $3B USD to high-impact charities annually. (See our 2025 strategy.) We’d like to be transparent about the choices we made, both to hold ourselves accountable and so other organisations can take the gaps we leave into account when planning their work. As such, this post aims to: * Inform the broader EA community about changes to projects & highlight opportunities to carry these projects forward * Provide timelines for project transitions * Explain our rationale for discontinuing certain initiatives What’s changing  We've identified 10 initiatives[1] to wind down or transition. These are: * GWWC Canada * Effective Altruism Australia funding partnership * GWWC Groups * Giving Games * Charity Elections * Effective Giving Meta evaluation and grantmaking * The Donor Lottery * Translations * Hosted Funds * New licensing of the GWWC brand  Each of these is detailed in the sections below, with timelines and transition plans where applicable. How this is relevant to you  We still believe in the impact potential of many of these projects. Our decision doesn’t necessarily reflect their lack of value, but rather our need to focus at this juncture of GWWC's development.  Thus, we are actively looking for organisations and individuals interested in taking on some of these projects. If that’s you, please do reach out: see each project's section for specific contact details. Thank you for your continued support as we
 ·  · 3m read
 · 
We are excited to share a summary of our 2025 strategy, which builds on our work in 2024 and provides a vision through 2027 and beyond! Background Giving What We Can (GWWC) is working towards a world without preventable suffering or existential risk, where everyone is able to flourish. We do this by making giving effectively and significantly a cultural norm. Focus on pledges Based on our last impact evaluation[1], we have made our pledges –  and in particular the 🔸10% Pledge – the core focus of GWWC’s work.[2] We know the 🔸10% Pledge is a powerful institution, as we’ve seen almost 10,000 people take it and give nearly $50M USD to high-impact charities annually. We believe it could become a norm among at least the richest 1% — and likely a much wider segment of the population — which would cumulatively direct an enormous quantity of financial resources towards tackling the world’s most pressing problems.  We initiated this focus on pledges in early 2024, and are doubling down on it in 2025. In line with this, we are retiring various other initiatives we were previously running and which are not consistent with our new strategy. Introducing our BHAG We are setting ourselves a long-term Big Hairy Audacious Goal (BHAG) of 1 million pledgers donating $3B USD to high-impact charities annually, which we will start working towards in 2025. 1 million pledgers donating $3B USD to high-impact charities annually would be roughly equivalent to ~100x GWWC’s current scale, and could be achieved by 1% of the world’s richest 1% pledging and giving effectively. Achieving this would imply the equivalent of nearly 1 million lives being saved[3] every year. See the BHAG FAQ for more info. Working towards our BHAG Over the coming years, we expect to test various growth pathways and interventions that could get us to our BHAG, including digital marketing, partnerships with aligned organisations, community advocacy, media/PR, and direct outreach to potential pledgers. We thin