Effective Altruism Forum
EA Forum

Comment Permalink
GraceAdams🔸13
0
0

Hi satelliteprocess!

I'm Grace, the Head of Marketing at GWWC.

Giving What We Can offers a number of giving pledges, the most popular being the "Trial Pledge" and the "10% Pledge"

A Trial Pledge allows you to pledge between 1%-10% of your income for a fixed amount of time between 6 months to 10 years.

A 10% Pledge is a pledge to give 10% of your income until you retire.

There's no progressive "tax" scheme for GWWC's Pledges, unlike The Life You Can Save (TLYCS)'s recommendations. GWWC also has the option for people to pledge a percentage of wealth, and we encourage those with significant wealth to give a higher proportion of their assets.

We encourage people to "give what they can" and find a level of giving that best suits them. We find that people have very different expectations about how much they can or should give and think it's for each person to decide what works for them. For example, some people on low incomes still take the 10% Pledge while others who earn significantly more might take a Trial Pledge for 1% or 5%.

If you're new to giving, I'd recommend taking a Trial Pledge for a percentage that feels comfortable to you, and plan on increasing it if you decide you'd like to give more.

Re: pre or post income tax, you can find the answer in this FAQ.

I don't know what country you're in, but to calculate your annual pre-tax and post-tax income but if you google, there's usually calculators or tools that do this for your country!

Peter Singer has taken the 10% Pledge (although he's mentioned he gives much more) but he is the founder of TLYCS. They are two different charities, which is why we have different pledges.

Giving What We Can offers a more active community around pledging, including a global slack community and dashboards to track your progress over time - promoting giving pledges is one of the main things we do and we're planning on improving the experience for our pledgers over time! So I'm biased in saying that taking a pledge with GWWC is a good idea, starting with a level of giving that you're comfortable with.

If you have any further questions, you can reach out to us at community@givingwhatwecan.org 

Reply
satelliteprocess1
0
0

Hi,

Few questions :

1) If you take 10% pledge now, does it apply to previous money you got/saved? Does it apply to small amounts of money you got (e.g. a friend gifts you 20 bucks as a birthday present) or only just the large amounts of money you get from like a job or whatnot. Also, do you donate every month or every year? Honestly, why not just wait until you are dead before donating it in your will? There are also things like Certificate Deposits where you have money stored in a location where you don't want to withdraw it too early to get interest.

2) Doe... (read more)

Reply
See in context
by satelliteprocess
1 min read 2

12

CommunityEffective givingDonation pledgeGiving What We CanThe Life You Can Save
Frontpage

Hi,

I'm new to effective altruism and just got my first paycheck from my job.

I'm confused. 

On one hand, The Life You Can Save offers a calculator on how much to donate. It seems to be a pretty progressive calculator in the sense that the more money you make, the higher "tax" you pay. 

Furthermore, it seems pretty clear that the tax you pay is based on pre-taxed money. 

What I am confused is on is that is there a progressive "tax" scheme for this 10% pledge? 

It seems a bit unclear whether you are supposed to donate only 10% whether you are extremely poor or like a billionaire. 

Furthermore, it is kind of ridiculous to expect poor people to donate a similar portion to a billionaire. 

Finally, does the 10% pledge apply to pre-annual tax income or post-annual tax?

How would you calculate your post-annual tax income by the way if you know your hourly rate?

To calculate pre-annual income I just do : (Hourly Rate)  x 40 hours x 52 weeks.

Finally, why are there two different schemes? 

Is one scheme meant for one people and the other meant for others?

Isn't Peter Singer involved with both 10% pledge and the Life You Can Save?

How does the Life You Can Save remotely related to 10% pledge?

Thanks.

12

0
0

Reactions

0
0
Comments2


Sorted by
New & upvoted
Click to highlight new comments since:
GraceAdams🔸13
0
0

Hi satelliteprocess!

I'm Grace, the Head of Marketing at GWWC.

Giving What We Can offers a number of giving pledges, the most popular being the "Trial Pledge" and the "10% Pledge"

A Trial Pledge allows you to pledge between 1%-10% of your income for a fixed amount of time between 6 months to 10 years.

A 10% Pledge is a pledge to give 10% of your income until you retire.

There's no progressive "tax" scheme for GWWC's Pledges, unlike The Life You Can Save (TLYCS)'s recommendations. GWWC also has the option for people to pledge a percentage of wealth, and we encourage those with significant wealth to give a higher proportion of their assets.

We encourage people to "give what they can" and find a level of giving that best suits them. We find that people have very different expectations about how much they can or should give and think it's for each person to decide what works for them. For example, some people on low incomes still take the 10% Pledge while others who earn significantly more might take a Trial Pledge for 1% or 5%.

If you're new to giving, I'd recommend taking a Trial Pledge for a percentage that feels comfortable to you, and plan on increasing it if you decide you'd like to give more.

Re: pre or post income tax, you can find the answer in this FAQ.

I don't know what country you're in, but to calculate your annual pre-tax and post-tax income but if you google, there's usually calculators or tools that do this for your country!

Peter Singer has taken the 10% Pledge (although he's mentioned he gives much more) but he is the founder of TLYCS. They are two different charities, which is why we have different pledges.

Giving What We Can offers a more active community around pledging, including a global slack community and dashboards to track your progress over time - promoting giving pledges is one of the main things we do and we're planning on improving the experience for our pledgers over time! So I'm biased in saying that taking a pledge with GWWC is a good idea, starting with a level of giving that you're comfortable with.

If you have any further questions, you can reach out to us at community@givingwhatwecan.org 

Reply
satelliteprocess1
0
0

Hi,

Few questions :

1) If you take 10% pledge now, does it apply to previous money you got/saved? Does it apply to small amounts of money you got (e.g. a friend gifts you 20 bucks as a birthday present) or only just the large amounts of money you get from like a job or whatnot. Also, do you donate every month or every year? Honestly, why not just wait until you are dead before donating it in your will? There are also things like Certificate Deposits where you have money stored in a location where you don't want to withdraw it too early to get interest.

2) Does 10% just apply to income or wealth in general? 

3) What's the point of the 10% pledge if you encourage people to find a level of giving that suits them?

4) I live in the USA. I'm not sure if donations are tax-deductible. If they are, what is the process of making sure that you get them deducted from taxes?

5) What's the most effective charity to donate to? Like I see there are multiple charities listed. But if you donate your 10% to a less effective charity thats listed (like idk x bucks to save a life for one charity, x+1 bucks to save a life for another charity), is that counted as part of the 10% pledge? 

Reply
Curated and popular this week
 ·  · 38m read
 · 
In recent months, the CEOs of leading AI companies have grown increasingly confident about rapid progress: * OpenAI's Sam Altman: Shifted from saying in November "the rate of progress continues" to declaring in January "we are now confident we know how to build AGI" * Anthropic's Dario Amodei: Stated in January "I'm more confident than I've ever been that we're close to powerful capabilities... in the next 2-3 years" * Google DeepMind's Demis Hassabis: Changed from "as soon as 10 years" in autumn to "probably three to five years away" by January. What explains the shift? Is it just hype? Or could we really have Artificial General Intelligence (AGI)[1] by 2028? In this article, I look at what's driven recent progress, estimate how far those drivers can continue, and explain why they're likely to continue for at least four more years. In particular, while in 2024 progress in LLM chatbots seemed to slow, a new approach started to work: teaching the models to reason using reinforcement learning. In just a year, this let them surpass human PhDs at answering difficult scientific reasoning questions, and achieve expert-level performance on one-hour coding tasks. We don't know how capable AGI will become, but extrapolating the recent rate of progress suggests that, by 2028, we could reach AI models with beyond-human reasoning abilities, expert-level knowledge in every domain, and that can autonomously complete multi-week projects, and progress would likely continue from there.  On this set of software engineering & computer use tasks, in 2020 AI was only able to do tasks that would typically take a human expert a couple of seconds. By 2024, that had risen to almost an hour. If the trend continues, by 2028 it'll reach several weeks.  No longer mere chatbots, these 'agent' models might soon satisfy many people's definitions of AGI — roughly, AI systems that match human performance at most knowledge work (see definition in footnote). This means that, while the compa
 ·  · 4m read
 · 
SUMMARY:  ALLFED is launching an emergency appeal on the EA Forum due to a serious funding shortfall. Without new support, ALLFED will be forced to cut half our budget in the coming months, drastically reducing our capacity to help build global food system resilience for catastrophic scenarios like nuclear winter, a severe pandemic, or infrastructure breakdown. ALLFED is seeking $800,000 over the course of 2025 to sustain its team, continue policy-relevant research, and move forward with pilot projects that could save lives in a catastrophe. As funding priorities shift toward AI safety, we believe resilient food solutions remain a highly cost-effective way to protect the future. If you’re able to support or share this appeal, please visit allfed.info/donate. Donate to ALLFED FULL ARTICLE: I (David Denkenberger) am writing alongside two of my team-mates, as ALLFED’s co-founder, to ask for your support. This is the first time in Alliance to Feed the Earth in Disaster’s (ALLFED’s) 8 year existence that we have reached out on the EA Forum with a direct funding appeal outside of Marginal Funding Week/our annual updates. I am doing so because ALLFED’s funding situation is serious, and because so much of ALLFED’s progress to date has been made possible through the support, feedback, and collaboration of the EA community.  Read our funding appeal At ALLFED, we are deeply grateful to all our supporters, including the Survival and Flourishing Fund, which has provided the majority of our funding for years. At the end of 2024, we learned we would be receiving far less support than expected due to a shift in SFF’s strategic priorities toward AI safety. Without additional funding, ALLFED will need to shrink. I believe the marginal cost effectiveness for improving the future and saving lives of resilience is competitive with AI Safety, even if timelines are short, because of potential AI-induced catastrophes. That is why we are asking people to donate to this emergency appeal
 ·  · 1m read
 · 
We’ve written a new report on the threat of AI-enabled coups.  I think this is a very serious risk – comparable in importance to AI takeover but much more neglected.  In fact, AI-enabled coups and AI takeover have pretty similar threat models. To see this, here’s a very basic threat model for AI takeover: 1. Humanity develops superhuman AI 2. Superhuman AI is misaligned and power-seeking 3. Superhuman AI seizes power for itself And now here’s a closely analogous threat model for AI-enabled coups: 1. Humanity develops superhuman AI 2. Superhuman AI is controlled by a small group 3. Superhuman AI seizes power for the small group While the report focuses on the risk that someone seizes power over a country, I think that similar dynamics could allow someone to take over the world. In fact, if someone wanted to take over the world, their best strategy might well be to first stage an AI-enabled coup in the United States (or whichever country leads on superhuman AI), and then go from there to world domination. A single person taking over the world would be really bad. I’ve previously argued that it might even be worse than AI takeover. [1] The concrete threat models for AI-enabled coups that we discuss largely translate like-for-like over to the risk of AI takeover.[2] Similarly, there’s a lot of overlap in the mitigations that help with AI-enabled coups and AI takeover risk — e.g. alignment audits to ensure no human has made AI secretly loyal to them, transparency about AI capabilities, monitoring AI activities for suspicious behaviour, and infosecurity to prevent insiders from tampering with training.  If the world won't slow down AI development based on AI takeover risk (e.g. because there’s isn’t strong evidence for misalignment), then advocating for a slow down based on the risk of AI-enabled coups might be more convincing and achieve many of the same goals.  I really want to encourage readers — especially those at labs or governments — to do something
Recent opportunities in Community
72
E2G help available
Will Kirkpatrick
· · 3m read
3
3
40
Feedback requested: Financial Independence Purpose Planner tool
Rebecca Herbst
· · 5m read
2
2
16
Sign up for a seminar on Christian Charity: Optimising donation in Christendom
James-Hartree-Law
· · 2m read
0
0
View more