CHARITABLE TAX CREDITS: A POOR EXCUSE FOR WELFARE CONCERNS
By

KATHLEEN KALLHOOD

A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
BACHELOR OF INTERDISCIPLINARY STUDIES

We accept this thesis as conforming to the required standards:
_________________________________________
Jenna Woodrow (Ph.D.), Thesis Supervisor, Dept. Philosophy
_________________________________________
Laura Lamb (Ph.D.), Dept. Economics
__________________________________________
Andrew Fergus (Ph.D.), Dept. Human Enterprise and Innovation
__________________________________________
Mark Rowell Wallin (Ph.D.), Co-ordinator, Interdisciplinary Studies

Dated this 6th day of April, 2018, in Kamloops, British Columbia, Canada

ABSTRACT
This paper examines charitable tax relief literature from a feminist standpoint, exposing flaws in the
rationales put forward for the policy. I outline economic and behavioural facets of charitable relief, and
evaluate standard justifications and criticisms. The assessment highlights ways in which charitable tax
relief prioritizes wealthy or privileged populations, and burdens subordinated populations through
democratic dilemmas caused by different populations’ access to and benefit from charitable tax relief.
I argue that charitable tax relief systems are not efficacious in producing equitable benefits across
classes. It ought to be replaced with a system of taxation better suited to supply society with necessary
welfare benefits.

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. Introduction ......................................................................................................................................... 1
II. Methodology ...................................................................................................................................... 2
III. What are Charitable Tax credits and deductions? ........................................................................... 3
IV. Economic Perspectives..................................................................................................................... 4
IV. 1. Price Elasticity ..................................................................................................................... 5
IV. 2. Efficiency ............................................................................................................................. 7
V. Demographic Trends and Motivations .............................................................................................. 9
VI. Ethics. ............................................................................................................................................. 16
VI. 1.1. Utilitarianism .................................................................................................................. 17
VI. 1.2. Deontology ...................................................................................................................... 18
VI. 1.3. Feminist Ethics ................................................................................................................ 20
VII. Historical Context for Philanthropy and Charitable Relief........................................................... 23
VIII. Justifications and Refutations. ..................................................................................................... 27
VIII.1. Efficiency .................................................................................................................... 27
VIII.1.1.Treasury and Fiscal Efficiency. .................................................................... 27
~VIII. 1.1. Against Treasury and Fiscal Efficiency. .................................................. 28
VIII. 1.2. Collection and Allocation Efficiency.. ....................................................... 28
~VIII. 1.2. Against Collection and Allocation Efficiency.. ........................................ 29
VIII. 1.3. Information Efficiency .. ............................................................................ 30
~VIII. 1.3. Against Information Efficiency .. ............................................................. 30
VIII.2. Pluralism and Tyranny of the Majority ....................................................................... 31
~VIII.2. Against Pluralism and Tyranny of the Majority ........................................................ 31
VIII.3. Redistribution of Wealth ............................................................................................. 33
~VIII.3. Against Redistribution of Wealth .............................................................................. 34
VIII.4. The World Without Charitable Relief ......................................................................... 34
~VIII.4. Against The World Without Charitable Relief .......................................................... 35
VIII.5. Promotes a Culture of Giving ...................................................................................... 35
~VIII.5. Against Promotes a Culture of o Giving ................................................................... 36
IX. Criticisms of Charitable Tax relief. ................................................................................................ 36
X. Discussion........................................................................................................................................ 40
X. 1. Perpetuation of Power Imbalance and Inequality ........................................................... 40
X. 2. Androcentric Value Paradigm ........................................................................................ 44
XI. Further Research Topics ................................................................................................................ 45

iii

XII. Conclusions................................................................................................................................... 45

iv

I. INTRODUCTION
Many structures in our society provide an upper hand to those who possess privilege, while at
the same time, these same structures create barriers to those who lack social, economic or political
advantages based on the color of their skin, gender, ability or sexual orientation. It can be seen all
around us: physically in our urban landscapes; economically in our policies and regulations; and
socially throughout the fabric of our society. Once we begin to analyze society that we live in, it can be
seen that the world has been, predominately, shaped by patriarchal forces to serve people in power;
charitable tax relief programs are no exception to this observation. Feminist critics attempt to dissect
these structures so that they can be better understood and more easily dismantled. In recognition of the
patriarchal roots of such central traditional ethical approaches as utilitarianism and deontology,
feminists work to produce moral accounts that are more inclusive of female experience and values
under the umbrella of feminist ethics.
This paper, then, uses feminist ethics to critique charitable tax relief from a feminist ethic
perspective. It identifies the lack of merit for charitable tax credits and deductions; and highlights their
contribution to the perpetuation of power imbalances and inequality. To make my case, I will begin
with a literature review, exploring a spectrum of data pertaining to charitable tax relief. The literature
covers economic and behavioural perspectives and trends. I have placed Hall’s (2009) seminal work
“Philanthropy, the Nonprofit Sector & the Democratic Dilemma” as the centerpiece of stage setting for
the review. Hall’s claim that legislative and taxation transitions in North America have entwined
philanthropy and governance and that this, in turn, has diminished democratic ideals, is an integral
component of my argument. I will then provide an explanation of feminist ethics and canvass alternate
ethical perspectives, utilitarianism and deontology, as they are the standard ethical theories used in
assessing business and policy decisions. I will demonstrate that charitable tax schemes do not
adequately address welfarist concerns about equity and distributive justice and are therefore unethical
from a feminist ethics perspective.

1

II. METHODOLOGY
This philosophical argument is based on both philosophical diagnoses and empirical data
gleaned from a wealth of diverse literature on charitable giving and charitable tax policy. Hence, it is
interdisciplinary in nature and it contains both quantitative economic and statistical data and qualitative
philosophical material. I have chosen to explore literature pertaining to credits and deductions drawn
from Canada, the United States and from France in an extensive study done by Fack and Landais
(2010). Unless otherwise specified, charitable tax credit data pertains to Canada and charitable tax
deduction data pertains to the US. I have chosen to explore all three systems not only because they
provide corroboration by each exhibiting similar flaws, but also because opening up literature across
countries furnishes additional resources, and enables a more elaborate and colorful understanding of
charitable tax relief policy and charitable behaviour.
III. WHAT ARE CHARITABLE TAX CREDITS AND DEDUCTIONS?
The first step in assessing this policy is to explain how charitable credits and deductions work.
Charitable tax relief allows taxpayers to claim qualifying charitable contributions in the form of credits
in Canada or deductions in the United States. These policies essentially lower the amount owed in taxes
through some form of government subsidization. I will begin by demonstrating how credits work in
Canada and then give a short explanation on how deductions work in the United States as these two
examples are representative of many developed countries’ charitable tax relief policy for credit or
deduction systems. Although the United States and Canada have very different governing bodies with
unique policies and regulations, they both have tax structures in the form of credits and deductions that
allow an income earner to receive income tax benefits for contributing to an array of charitable causes.
Many developed countries provide some type of charitable income tax relief to promote giving. Both
charitable tax credits and deductions have a similar intent: to incentivize giving or to promote “better”
giving. The idea with credits and deductions is that by lowering the price of giving, the demand to
participate will increase, causing more contributions. In essence, allowing tax credits and deductions

2

provides earners the ability to direct a portion of what would have been government revenue toward
the organization of their choice. One of the primary differences between tax credits and deductions are
the way that the benefit affects different income brackets. U.S. deductions provide systematically
greater rewards as income brackets increase (Levmore, 1998), unlike the credit system in Canada where
rates are simply determined based on the amount claimed in a tax year. Deduction systems are more
common than credit systems according to Hossain and Lamb (2017) but Canada chose to switch to a
credit system in 1988 (Hossain & Lamb, 2012). It is important to recognize that credits and deductions
received through charitable contributions can also be viewed as foregone government revenue, diverted
at its source. Benshalom (2009) points out that those who have little tax policy knowledge or insight
may fail to see charitable tax credits for what they are “an indirect government subsidy to non-profit
charitable organizations “(p. 1048).
According to the information retrieved from Canada Revenue Agency (2017) (CRA), for
individuals in Canada, non-refundable charitable tax credits function with two-tier separate federal and
provincial components that each have two levels of credits (Hossain and Lamb, 2012). The provincial
component credit rates vary by jurisdiction (Charitable Donations Tax Credits Rates, 2017).
Federal Legislation (2016) from CRA documents:
15% on the first $200 of total donations
33% on whichever of the following two amounts is less



Amount of donation for the year above the first $200



Amount of taxable income over $200,000

29% on total donations for the year above first $200, which are not eligible for the 33%
Example:
A donor from Alberta with an income of $230,000 donates a total of $25,000 under the current
proposed legislation of 2016.
Federal charitable donation tax credit calculation

3

15% on first $200 = $30
33% on the lesser of the following:



Amount donation exceeds $200 = $24,800



Amount their taxable income exceeds $200,000 = $30,000

33% of $24,800 = $8,184
29% on amount of total donations for year over $200 and not eligible for 33% rate
29% of $5,200 = $1,508
Total federal tax credit = ($30 + $8,184 + $1,508) = $9,722

Provincial charitable donation tax credit calculation
10% on first 200 = $20
21% on remaining $24,800 = $5,208
Total provincial tax credit = $5228
Total charitable donation tax credit (Federal + Provincial) = ($9,722 +$5,228) = $14,930

Conversely, in the United States, earners are given an extensive list of criteria and limitations
for their charitable contribution deductions to adhere to within their progressive tax system. Donations
above $250 must be itemized and qualify to receive deduction. Also, there are limits upon the amount
earners can deduct. For example, generally speaking but with some exceptions, the deduction earners
receive cannot surpass 50% of the earners adjusted yearly income (Publication 526, 2016). Once earners
have confirmed the amount that qualifies for deduction, they subtract that dollar amount from their total
income, as other deductions work. This essentially lowers their marginal tax rate and thus the total
amount they will have to pay. In both cases, the credits and deductions are funded by the broader public
and the donors jointly and donors are given the ability to allocate foregone government revenue.
(Pevnick, 2013).
IV. ECONOMIC PERSPECTIVES

4

IV. 1. PRICE ELASTICITY
Price elasticity of a tax incentive measures the responsiveness of the amount donated to the
change in the deduction or credit. The price elasticity of a tax credit or deduction provides a
measurement of the responsiveness of tax itemizers to the tax incentive. For example, if the tax relief
rate is increased by 10 percent, and giving increases by 30 percent, the incentive would be considered
elastic because the responsiveness to the incentive is quite high relative to the change in the tax relief
rate. However, if the tax relief rate is increased by 10 percent, and giving increases by only 3 percent,
the incentive would be considered inelastic because the incentive induced very little effect. Sometimes
in literature, assessments of charitable tax relief are treated as though responsiveness is unified across
donation sectors. Part of what makes the effectiveness of price elasticity of charitable tax relief difficult
to pinpoint are the broad categories of charitable causes. The broad categories make the array of
influences over responsiveness quite expansive. This variability has been shown in Hossain and Lamb’s
(2012) study which evaluates tax incentive effectiveness on an individual’s expenditures. The study
also evaluates the effectiveness of the tax incentives across different charitable causes for potential
policy implications, finding that determining and clearly identifying donor responsiveness to incentives
allows policy makers to assess costs and benefits to society of any given charitable tax scheme.
Clearly, there are limitations to obtaining accurate price elasticity results for charitable relief.
For example, data-sets are often lacking portions of information because of individuals who are nonitemizers who also tend to be the low income earners (Benshalom, 2009). Non-itemizers are those who
donate to qualifying charitable organizations but do not choose to claim their credit or deduction when
they do their taxes. Conversely, itemizers donate to qualifying organizations and do claim their credit
or deduction. When speaking of the price elasticity of contributions “elasticity is not only likely to vary
between different groups of taxpayers, but it is also likely to respond to government spending patterns.”
(Benshalom, 2009, p. 1060). High income earners tend to be the demographic who have a strong tax
incentive effect. Yetman and Yetman’s (2013) US data found price elasticities signalled that incentives

5

caused reallocation of contributions to different charitable sectors “creating relative winners and
losers.” This polarization occurs because particular types of charities are more responsive to incentives
than others, and overall donations roughly offset foregone revenue costs. Yetman and Yetman’s (2013)
elasticity results suggest that if deductions in the US were decreased, it would result in a reduction of
contributions specifically within the highest tax bracket. Those who have low incomes who donate less
and do not itemize will have a weak tax incentive effect. For a non-itemizer, the price elasticity for tax
incentives will be zero, a condition referred to as “perfectly inelastic”. This is perfect inelasticity
because the amount donated does not change at all based on the amount one receives as a credit or
deduction (Yetman & Yetman, 2013). A limitation suggested by Yetman and Yetman (2013) is with
the ability to determine the price elasticity in some cases due to small sample sizes and older data sets.
An in-depth study was done by Fack and Landais (2010) to estimate the effect of charitable tax
incentives by following the impact of the reforms done on tax relief policy in France. Fack and Landais
found what you might expect: that an increase in incentives caused high income earners to change their
giving habits. However, contrary to expectation, results displayed that low income earners did not
change their giving habits substantially. Thus, this finding demonstrates the low price elasticity of tax
incentives on low income earners. The price elasticity for low-income earners was perfectly inelastic
to inelastic in nature, which implies that imposing tax relief and attempting to change the price of giving
has little to no impact on certain demographics willingness to donate. In this particular scenario, Fack
and Landais (2010) found that the incentive did not create the desired effect and that the foregone
government revenue outweighed the increase in charitable donations.
The price elasticity for tax incentives on charitable donations will vary for different demographics
and subsets of charitable causes. Responsiveness may vary based on differences in age, gender,
education level, income level and so on. It could be beneficial to further break down these
measurements to decide how best to determine what organizations should qualify for relief or what tax

6

relief rates should be given to different demographics. These calculations could also supplement
justifications for or against charitable tax incentives.
IV. 2 EFFICIENCY
Studies suggest charitable tax schemes induce an increase in the dollar amount donated to
charity that is greater than the revenue foregone by government, especially due the aggregate effect of
the increase in charitable donations (Izzo, 1993). This outcome is known as “fiscal efficiency”.
Benshalom (2009) summarizes some of the forms of efficiency related to charitable tax relief by
identifying that generally, it is accepted as a way of promoting treasury, collecting, spending and
informational efficiency. It works because of the assumption that the free market economy cannot
efficiently provide some socially desirable goods and services. Treasury efficiency, then, can be seen
as the increase in funds directed toward charitable outcomes both publicly and privately. Logically, the
calculation must be representative of the increase specifically caused by charitable tax relief, while a)
subtracting the amount that would have otherwise been spent without tax relief, and b) not forgetting
to factor in revenue supplied to facilitate charitable relief. Therefore, treasury efficiency could be
considered quite opaque in results. Additionally, the nature of deduction systems and marginal tax rates
with rising benefit to donors further complicate treasury efficiency calculations, because, as we have
seen, deduction systems provide larger incentives to those at the highest marginal tax bracket.
Benshalom (2009) explains that “The inverse impact of the average marginal tax rates significantly
complicates the analysis of whether the deduction meets the standard of treasury efficiency.” (p. 1059).
According to Hossain and Lamb (2012), the tax credit in Canada appears to be fiscally efficient. In this
case, they define fiscal efficiency as the circumstance where “the increase in donation expenditures is
greater than the loss of tax revenue due to the tax incentive”, similar to treasury efficiency (p. 6). Some
donation sectors, such as the religious sector, will not be fiscally efficient. The religious sector is one
of these areas that may not be fiscally efficient because donors will likely donate regardless of the tax
incentive. In other words, the religious sector’s charitable donations to charitable tax relief ratio is price

7

inelastic; there is in no significant increase in contributions while the government endures a loss in tax
revenue (Hossain & Lamb, 2012).
Spending efficiency has to do with targeting taxpayers price elasticity of contributions based
on government spending patterns. An example of spending efficiency could occur when a left leaning
government introduces an abundance of spending initiatives intended to minimize homelessness. In
response to these well advertised initiatives, tax-payers may have chosen to cut back on their
contributions to charities that work to benefit the same homeless class because the need has decreased.
Thus, the result of these government spending patterns could cause the price elasticity of contributions
to change within that donation sector. The hypothesis behind this example is commonly referred to as
“crowding out”, where government spending influences the donor choices. Substantial research has
been done on this concept, exploring the effect of government spending on donation behaviour; for
example, Pennerstorfer and Meumayr (2016) noted that studies have produced varying results for the
crowding out hypothesis. In some studies government spending has shown no impact on the charitable
sector at all, while other cases have produced results that suggest incomplete crowding out, “meaning
that a dollar of public grants crowds -out donations by between 0.05 and 0.35 dollars” (Pennerstorfer
& Meumayr, 2016, p. 535). As one might expect, results have been different across countries. These
divergent results were noted by Wojciech Sokolowski (2012) as well, who found that depending on a
complex range of external factors government support could either divert donations to other areas or
increase donations expenditures (2013). Similarly, Andreoni (1990) suggests most research has
displayed a small level of crowding out.
Collecting efficiency has to do with the ease of gathering taxes. For example, reducing the
amount individuals’ pay in taxes as well as allowing them a voice in the direction of government funds
can both increase tax-collection efficiency because taxes are a coerced transaction. Hence, most
individuals will take part in methods of tax avoidance or minimization (Benshalom, 2009).

8

Benshalom’s (2009) final category of efficiency, informational efficiency, pertains to
achieving more appropriate spending through charitable relief. Under this premise, taxpayer’s have
superior ability over legislators to make spending decisions because they possess unique information
about the community. Clearly, this form of efficiency could be very difficult to determine because
assessments are subjective in nature and would vary based on the welfare concern. It is still the case
that the argument for informational efficiency could be made strongly in some cases and not in others
where government has significantly stronger expertise. “Hence, charitable relief relies on the synergy
between public and private information to promote better provision of public goods.”(Benshalom,
2009, p 1061).
V. DEMOGRAPHIC TRENDS AND MOTIVATIONS
Within the bracket of donor behaviour, and closely linked to the tax price elasticity, are
categories of motivating factors in contributing. Many variables affect earners motives for contributing
and these motives are an important aspect of determining the use of charitable tax incentives.
Understanding what motivates individuals or households to donate can be a helpful tool in deciphering
why and how policies should be implemented. Underlying motives can display the potential ethical
ramifications of allowing individuals to influence government funds.
Breaking down populations into demographics can be a pragmatic way of assessing charitable
tax relief outcomes. One of the most important demographics to examine are the wealthy is for the
simple reason that those with more resources have the ability to donate more. Low income individuals,
whose earnings are generally providing base-level needs, will not be donating large sums of money to
charitable causes. The more money an individual makes, the more disposable income they have and the
more they can donate. However, the rise in charitable giving does not increase proportionally with rise
of income according to List (2011) and Hood, Martin and Osberg (1977). High and low income earners
tend to contribute quite differently in the amount of contribution and in donor sectors. As one may
assume, contributions from the wealthy make up a considerable portion of overall charitable donations.

9

Turcotte (2012) finds that in Canada the top donors who belong to the upper quartile donated roughly
83 percent of all donations collected by charitable or non-profit organizations. They also find that the
top decile made up 63 percent of all donations. Turcotte (2012) found the statistics to be quite similar
when analysing data from the 2007 to 2010 Canada Survey of Giving Volunterring and Participating
(CSGVP).
The more aware donors are of community needs and of their own positive moral attributes, the
more likely they are to contribute. In Turcotte’s (2012) assessment of the CSGVP data they found that
those with university educations and higher paying jobs give more. There is commonality between
those demographics; often those with higher paying jobs have a university education and will be able
to contribute more. It has also been well-documented that religiously active people donate more often
and also donate large contributions (Turcotte, 2012). This is possibly related to the altruistic and prosocial values preached within religious activities. There is also the possibility that being religiously
active brings one to places where there are additional solicitations, making it more likely one will give.
According to the CSGVP data, Turcotte (2012) found that religious organizations received
approximately 40 percent of the total annual donations in Canada. In the same study, it was noted that
donations increased with an increase in age, however, this was not the case within the religious
demographic in which donations stayed the same.
Hossain and Lamb’s (2012) analysis on the effectiveness of charitable tax incentives found a
positive relationships between high household income and religious, health, and social services
donation expenditures. Another positive indicator they found for larger donations to the social services
sector was marital status. Respondents in their study also showed a difference in donation habits
between individuals born in Canada than those who had immigrated; they found Canadian born citizens
donated more to health organizations while immigrants contributed more to international organizations.
Hossain and Lamb (2012) noted differences in donating behaviour across Canadian provinces as well,
indicating that attitudes and culture across geographies dictate donor behaviour.

10

List (2011) describes a commonly discussed trend that shows how giving as a percentage of
household income is U-shaped. Noting that very low income households give roughly five percent of
their income. As earnings rise to the middle class income range, households give roughly two percent
with a gradual increase to three percent of their yearly income. Then, as income increases to the top
earners, contributions again average roughly five percent or more of yearly earnings; top earners in this
instance being those who have net worth of one to five million. Hence, a U-shaped curve is created
when graphing percentage of yearly income that was donated against the increase of household income
(List, 2011). This phenomena is well explained by Schervish & Havens (1995). They discern that the
U-shaped curve is only visible when assessing the population consisting of contributors, while the
results vary drastically when using the entire population due to the low level of people who actually
donate. “The reason for the difference in the two curves, [between donors and the entire population], is
the level of participation. Only 47 per cent of the lowest income category contribute to philanthropy,
and less than 70 per cent contribute in income categories below $20,000.” (Schervish & Havens, 1995).
Unfortunately, data on individuals with high net worth is limited, impeding on the strength of these
studies. There are a few different hypothesis for this phenomenon. It could in part be due to many low
income earners contributing substantial percentages of their yearly income to religious organizations.
Another demographic that List (2011) noted could be influencing this trend, are retirees who have high
assets but low annual incomes. This population of contributors have the ability to donate large sums
due to their accumulated wealth. Schervish and Havens (1995) break down the U-shaped curve into
religious and non-religious causes that have been contributed to. They then demonstrate that the
curvature is due to low income households contributing a disproportionately large percentage of their
income in comparison to high income households (1995, p. 6). List (2011) suggests that another factor
contributing to the U-shaped trend appears to be that younger donors are more generous in their giving
habits because their financial stress is of minimal concern and they have the expectation their earnings
will increase.

11

The composition of targets for charitable donations varies based on class and income as Hood
Martin and Osberg (1977) point out in their paper on the economic determinants of individual charitable
donations in Canada. Each age demographic or generation you are born in may be associated with a
trend in charitable behaviour. Hood Martin and Osberg (1977) call this phenomenon a “time trend”
demonstrating that the shared common experiences of society will change the choices of donors. Each
generation may perceive societal needs differently, based on political culture at a given time.
Additionally, an assortment of research contributes to the psychology behind the allocation of
charitable contributions. One of the trends that affects donor choices is name recognition. Benshalom
(2009) as well as De Vita and Tombly (2005) noted that donors do not always think carefully about the
allocation of their donations and donate to organizations that are well recognized; impulsiveness can
lead to the majority of donations going to a few big-name charities. This trend could be from name
recognition or the perceived ease of redeeming these contributions because well known organizations
would likely meet governmental qualification criteria, because as Weeks McCormack indicates there
is clear incentive to give to a charity that qualifies for deductions and credits (2010).
Self-perception is also found to be a powerful influence over an individual’s charitable
behaviour. People generally desire a positive self-image, as well as external affirmation of that positive
self-image. Individuals want others to like them and care to some degree that they are seen as successful
and generous. Because the concept of good is relative and can be shaped by the community. The culture
that individuals are surrounded by will have an influence over the way they donate. If others in a
community donate in a particular way, individuals will want to mimic that behaviour (Kumru &
Vesterlund, 2010). So, if families in ones neighbourhood openly participate in charitable events, donate
large sums to charity, and tend to give to sectors with focus on health and science, one will be more
likely to act similarly to avoid feeling as they have fallen behind in social status. Individuals do not
want to have a lower status than their peers. Kumru and Vesterlund (2010) call this “the status leader
effect”. Essentially, donors are likely to contribute when they are aware of other large donors’

12

contributions. Knowing others have taken part in altruistic or charitable behaviour creates a sense of
embarrassment, shame, or guilt resulting in a social obligation to match others habits (Kumru &
Vesterlund, 2010).
This idea of self perception and status influencing donor behaviour gives the opportunity to
foster a culture of “do-gooders”. Young, Chakroft & Tom (2012) argue that maintaining self-perception
is natural, so when individuals are pushed to perceive themselves as altruistic or as “do-gooders” they
inherently want to achieve that same outcome going forward to reinforce a self concept rooted in
morality.
Altruism is a sought after quality. Richard Kraut (2016), in “Altruism” defines altruism as
deliberate behaviour that is motivated by benefit to someone other than the acting agent. Altruism is
the contrapositive of egoism which concludes all individuals have one main motive: their own well
being (Kraut, 2016). Similarly, Pevnick (2013) suggests that reinforcing positive moral behaviour
within the non-profit sector creates additional altruistic behaviour. Hence, incentives given through tax
schemes could create positive externalities by developing and stimulating positive social capital. In
other words, social capital takes part in fostering beneficial relationships and networks that enable a
more functional society. Charitable tax relief incentives advance a caring and giving culture, which in
turn could spill over, benefiting more than the charitable sector (Pevnick, 2013). The practice of
charitable giving arises as a social and cultural practice and these types of cultural exchanges are tied
to reciprocity and given our propensity to engage in forms of social contracts, we have a mutual interest
in equity and fairness, not only in material payoffs (Turcotte, 2012).
Riyanto and Zhang (2014) published a study that showed pro-social behaviour was stronger
among those who were under egalitarian treatment rather than meritocratic treatment. Under egalitarian
treatment, with income redistribution, individuals were each compensated equally, whereas, under
meritocratic treatment, with capitalistic competition, individuals were compensated based on ability
and performance with no taxation. This study presents valuable insight for policy choices because the

13

subsidization of low performers by high performers made low performers more generous (Riyanto &
Zhang, 2014).
James Andreoni has contributed a breadth of research on charitable giving and altruistic
behaviour. His work suggests that an aspect of donor motives are based on “impure altruism” which
create what he refers to as “warm glow”. This warm glow is the result of the pleasant feeling associated
with doing something beneficial for someone else. Therefore, producing impure altruism because
giving produces both an altruistic and self-interested act due to dual motives. Contrary to the idea of
crowding out –(see above), Andreoni (1989) finds that “[w]ith resepect to charity, impure altruism
indicates that progressive taxation may actually increase charitable giving rather than decrease it, as
commonly believed.”(p. 449). The moderate findings on crowding out and strength of impure altruistic
behaviour depicts the complexity of our moral aptitude and it speaks to the importance of value
judgements and moral consideration in our economic models and policy choices.
Added to these complex behavioural matrices, positive perceptions of charitable organizations
have received been dwindling. This negative public perception could be due to corruption or inefficient
allocation of donor funds. It has been widely reported that many large non-profits and charities have
CEO’s or executives earning significantly higher salaries than a middle-class North American. It is fair
to assume that these wages could be seen as flagrant or excess and not within the spirit of charity.
Hence, the growing public perception that donations will be used inefficiently is not surprising. Turcotte
(2012) found that this perception is more common among men than women and also found that the
skepticism increased with age in Canada.
Different groups of people have distinctive experiences. It is to be expected, therefore, that
different demographics have unique views and will ultimately assess community needs differently. As
feminist theorists such as Code (1981), Harding (1993) and Harstock (1983) have made clear, women
are one of these demographics that have a unique view, so gender is a pragmatic avenue to discuss
charitable giving. According to Themudo (2009) women are more likely than men to have made a

14

financial donation to a charitable cause and have also been found to volunteer more often. These
findings were echoed by Turcotte (2012) assessment of CSGVP data. Pynes (2000) points out that
despite their predominance in the volunteer sector, there are far fewer females than males in executive
managerial roles in charitable organizations. So although the volunteer sector is overwhelmingly
comprised of women, most major decisions within charitable organizations are being made by men in
power.
Research in the social sciences have shown women are less selfish and more public spirited
than men (Themudo, 2009). Additionally, Themudo (2009) found that women are more likely than men
to work in the nonprofit sector and behave more generously when faced with economic hardship. In the
same study, Themudo conversely found that globally, men are more likely to be members of non-profit
organizations. However, it was pointed out that there was a direct relationship between non-profit sector
strength and women’s empowerment. It is probable that as women’s relative share of resources and
participation in the economy increases, the supply of private resources to the nonprofit sector should
also increase. Their research also implies that as women develop a more equal standing socially and
economically in society, the demand for public service provision will increase (Themudo, 2009).
Young, Chakeroff and Tom (2012) confirm Themudo’s (2009) assertion that single women tend to give
more than single men, noting that when participants were asked hypothetically what they would donate,
women chose to give more than men. Participants in their study were not however anchored to their
claims. The finding that women tend to donate more was also reflected in Hossain and Lamb’s article
evaluating the effectiveness of charitable tax incentives and price elasticities across donation sectors.
Their assessment found that “Female respondents are more likely to make larger total donations and
health donations than males.” (Hossain & Lamb, 2012, p. 5).
Some studies have produced outcomes that imply there is no difference in giving between men
and women. However, Themudo (2009) points out that the difference may have resulted from the way
data was formatted in the studies. For example, Andreoni and Vesterlund (2010) illustrated that the

15

altruism demand curves for men and women cross due to the difference in their response to price
change, or in other words, level of incentive. In particular, Andreoni and Vesterlund (2010) found that
men are more responsive to price changes. So, when it is relatively expensive to give, women are quite
generous but when the price of giving decreases, men begin to give more (Andreoni & Vesterlund,
2010). Men and women’s behaviours toward donating also vary in that women often favour equality
and tend to distribute evenly when possible. However, men are found to be either perfectly selfless or
selfish. Therefore, depending on how data is taken, prices for altruism that are “mid-ranged” tend to
generate similar levels of results for both men and women (Andreoni & Vesterlund, 2010). Turcotte’s
(2012) assessment of the CSGVP data showed that women are more likely to donate to charities within
the health and social services sector, whereas men are more likely to donate to sports and recreation.
These statistics may display the different evaluation or awareness of needs and values that women
have.
VI. 1. ETHICS
My concern with the present tax relief system lies in the value paradigm expressed through
these rationales and their incomplete policy assessments. In brief, the classical rationales for
conventional tax benefits for charitable donations lack a feminist ethical perspective and equity
considerations, the lack of consideration for feminist perspectives by apologists of the status quo appear
correlated to the patriarchal systems that are present in our society. I intend to illustrate that charitable
tax relief is unethical when assessed from a feminist value set and that the arguments against such relief
outweighs the rationales attempting to justify it. I will argue against the most prominent justifications
for charitable tax relief, assessing criticisms found throughout literature and discussing two premises
that support eliminating it. These premises focus on the perpetuation of power imbalances and
inequalities, and the androcentric values inherent in the policy.
To set stage for my argument, I will first briefly outline Utilitarianism and Deontology, two
other compelling philosophical approaches that can be brought to bear to address ethical considerations

16

for tax policy, before turning to a defense of Feminist Ethical approach to these issues. I now turn to
exploring utilitarianism and deontology to reveal what these ethical perspectives entail, and why
feminist ethics is a uniquely pragmatic alternative.
VI .1.1 UTILITARIANISM
Utilitarianism is a form of consequentialism, where choices are weighed based on the
consequences of their outcomes. Essentially, utilitarianism states that the superior moral choice, is the
one that which produces the most good. The way that “the most good” is determined however, can be
ambiguous at times. Impartiality in weighing outcomes is one thread of utilitarian principles, where
one agent’s welfare is worth the same amount as the welfare of another agent (Driver, 2014). Under
this premise, the calculation would set out to determine which outcome increases welfare for the most
people. At times, this way of decision making can be perceived as cold or inhumane. It also fails in so
far that the outcomes of some decisions cannot be easily identified.
Were we to use utilitarianism to calculate the relative goodness of charitable tax relief we
would quickly see the downfalls of the unethical framework because it can be challenging to grasp the
gravity of the human rights concerns associated with the undemocratic flaws of charitable relief. In the
case of charitable tax credits, inducing incentives could be seen as increasing the welfare of all
itemizers, as well as increasing the welfare of all those who benefit from the variety of charitable causes
that have received an increase in donations. All the while, at face value, the incentive would appear to
make very little change from the status quo for those who choose not to itemize, or who have no
connection with the benefiting organizations. So, if the number of individuals who receive an increase
in welfare due to the charitable tax relief is higher than the number of individuals who do not, then
under a utilitarian calculation, inducing the charitable tax relief may be the right choice. However,
because utilitarianism insist upon impartiality, this calculation fails to address the disparity between the
level of welfare increase to the larger group of individuals who gain from the policy, over the level of
potential welfare hindrances to those who lack involvement in the policy implications. Data would

17

suggest that the larger constituent of individuals who gain from the tax incentive are those who have
less monetary welfare concerns to begin with and consequently gain more fiscal benefits, while those
who belong to the smaller group of individuals are likely those with fewer economic and social
privileges, and do not have their primary needs being addressed. Thus, in this assessment, it could be
said that the utilitarian calculations lack strength in its ability to address complex ethical concerns, and
may be considered cold or inhumane; it is hard to act with impartiality when human rights at stake. This
scenario nicely illustrates one of the flaws that utilitarianism possesses regarding the theory’s capacity
to permit actions no matter how harmful they are to some, as long as the act is more beneficial to others.
The use of utilitarian calculation allows for tyranny of the majority, where the interests of the majority
come at the expense of those in the minority. In addition, utilitarianism does not account for civil rights,
which makes the account unacceptable from a moral standpoint. This is why a feminist moral approach,
which assesses each particular situation uniquely with care and empathy is beneficial to this discussion,
especially when we factor in consequentialist welfare concerns.
VI. 1.2. DEONTOLOGY
As a theory, deontology can be understood in opposition to utilitarianism. Instead of making choices
based on the outcome that produces “the most good”, choices are dictated by duties. Under
deontological ethics, the morality of a choice is based on the rational integrity of the principle, not the
following consequences that are produced. Because of the difference in structure from utilitarianism,
deontology allows individuals a sense of rational autonomy (Alexander & Moore, 2016). Immanuel
Kant, the philosopher most closely associated with this theory, coined the “categorical imperative” as
a concept in rule or duty based ethics. Categorical imperatives can be considered a form of universal
maxim, where an ethical decision is made based on its objective and rationally necessary quality
(Alexander & Moore, 2016). In other words, the deontological subject will only act on maxims that one
would will as universal law for everyone to follow. This theory can be appreciated for its intuitively
understood moral characteristics. Additionally, deontology also provides room for supererogatory acts

18

and allows actors agency and the ability to give special care to endeavors they see fit such as family,
unlike utilitarian premises (Alexander & Moore, 2016). Yet, deontological perspectives have been
subject to significant criticism as there are many conditions and stipulations given to account for
potential maxim conflicts or prioritization of imperatives, making the theory confusing at times. For
example, the paradox of relative stringency presents itself in the assertion that maxims are law like
categoricals that must be acted upon regardless of the consequence, while also suggesting that particular
maxims are more stringent than others (Alexander & Moore, 2016).
If we were to approach the decision of implementing charitable tax relief from a deontological
perspective, we would choose maxims that are pure and good and the actions would be judged based
on the virtue of its aim. However, the results that follow may not be desirable. First, we must choose a
set of maxims to assess the policy through, such as respect for human life and fairness. Depending on
an individual's interpretation of what respect for a human life and fairness are, outcomes can vary
substantially. One may view the implication of charitable tax credits as acts that give respect to human
life and foster fairness because the policy allows individuals who have earned high incomes more
autonomy in the ability to direct funds, which they may perceive as their right. On a surface level, this
choice may seem objectively rational because if an individual works hard to earn wealth, they may
believe they deserve more power. Similarly, if one is in a position of privilege, they may be keen on
universalizing this notion as they do not fully realize the barriers that some face in accessing the benefit
of charitable tax relief. This initial reading of the scenario lacks consequential reasoning to account for
the perpetuation of undemocratic flaws. Alternately, charitable tax relief could be viewed as unfair due
to its undemocratic nature and therefore considered an unethical policy decision on those terms. The
conflicting assessment that may arise when following multiple maxims can be problematic. Again,
Kant’s theory of duty based ethics gives extensive outlines of how to deal with moral dilemmas that
may occur but the process can become quite convoluted and at times can begin to mimic other ethical
theories.

19

In summary, the problems the crop up when assessing charitable tax relief using utilitarianism
is that is allows for tyranny of the majority, it cannot account for the importance of civil rights, and that
so long as the majority are happy, the few can suffer. Deontology has a separate set of dilemmas that
occur because universal rules do not apply in each situation to everyone and because a lack of
consequential thought abandons the outcome of good will or intention.
Utilitarianism and deontology do provide useful frameworks for assessing ethical situations,
but they fail to comprehensively and carefully prioritize situations in a way that gives actors some level
of agency and consequential foresight. Assessing morality has a relative nature which philosophers
have attempted to avoid through creating concise theories that account for all dilemmas. Feminist ethics
can be viewed as a way to supplement these theories. Feminist ethics is less structured and aims to
address problems on a circumstantial basis, taking care and empathy into consideration. Combining
these forms of ethical frameworks arguably provides the most holistic and suitable outcomes: that
individuals can feel good about for the integrity of the virtues that decisions are based off of, as well as
its outcomes. Feminist ethics fills in the empty spaces where traditional ethical theories may leave
actors feeling uneasy, because try as we may, attempting to keep decision-making simple by eliminating
emotional and empathetic perspectives and following a formulaic set of rules, does not embody the
complexity of human experience or our ethical abilities. The outcome of a feminist approach should
produce a circumstance in which harm has been mitigated on a broad scale assessing all of the dilemmas
and making the most well informed decision. The overarching aim is to expand the moral circle and
have no one harmed in the outcome of a decision if it is possible. One way of ensuring that additional
care and consideration is taken in our everyday lives, is by implementing the most democratic systems
and infrastructure within our society. I will explore this in greater depth with a summary of Hall’s
(2013) Philanthropy, the Nonprofit sector & the Democratic Dilemma, in the section following
Feminist ethics.
VI. 1.3. FEMINIST ETHICS

20

Looking at charitable tax relief from a feminist perspective solves some problems that are
associated with some of the justifications that I will later outline. Utilitarianism fails, insofar, that it
allows tyranny of the majority to prevail; so long as most are happier, the few can suffer. So, this
outcome cannot account for important civil rights. I will further address why these accounts are
important in two of my refutations titled: “Pluralism and Tyranny of the Majority”, and “The World
without Charitable Giving”. The inadequacy of deontology as a framework for assessment stems from
universal laws not applying everywhere and to everyone, and in the non-consequential approach that
leaves no room for good intentions. Taking good intention and altruistic behaviour into account is
crucial to developing a comprehensive ethical assessment of charitable tax relief.
In a Different Voice Carol Gilligan’s (1982) text, is one of the most important pieces of
literature on feminist moral thought, bringing to light the different moral values and voices of women
and men Gilligan’s (1982) work highlights the different lenses through which men and women see the
world due to their differences in experience:
At a time when efforts are being made to eradicate discrimination between sexes in the search
for social equality and justice, the differences between the sexes are being rediscovered in the
social sciences. This discovery occurs when theories formerly considered to be sexually neutral
in their scientific objectivity are found instead to reflect a consistent observational and
evaluative bias. Then the presumed neutrality of science, like that of language itself gives way
to the recognition that the categories of knowledge are human constructions. The fascination
with point of view that has informed the fiction of the twentieth century and the corresponding
recognition of the relativity of judgement infuse our scientific understanding as well when we
begin to notice how accustomed we have become to seeing life through men’s eyes. (p. 6)
Gilligan’s work is often associated with a branch of philosophy called care ethics which asks how the
needs of individuals involved in a particular situation be met. According to Stone (2007), care ethics
could be summarized first by the focus on particular circumstantial situations and individuals; second
with prioritizing and meeting needs; third by a focus on relationship maintenance; and finally, by the
consideration of emotions being a critical element in moral thinking. There are, of course criticisms of
Gilligan’s work that amount to attempts to reinforce traditional female roles rather than potentially
challenging them, all of which contain significant biases toward middle-class white women or are

21

plagued by essentialist arguments. However, Gilligans work recognizes that women are undervalued
and persistently lack recognition in economic and social systems designed by and for men. This same
lack of recognition can be seen in the case of charitable tax relief policy choices. It is important to make
clear, that feminist theory explores the experience of marginalized persons, not only the experience of
women.
Broadly speaking, ethics is concerned with how we manage our actions and how we ought to
live our lives. It attempts to classify actions based on different principles to determine whether they are
right or wrong, good or bad (Singer, 1994). Ethics examines living morally through critical reflection
and systematic examination (Racher, 2007). Morality and ethics can generally be used interchangeably
within philosophical discourse. Utilitarianism and Deonology are traditional ethical theories to express
why I have chosen feminist ethics as a lens. Feminist ethics attempts to rethink traditional ethics
because those traditional perspectives are often missing female perspectives and at times even
depreciate or undervalue female experience. Feminist authors have challenged traditional ethics on a
number of fronts. Tong and Williams’ (2016) summarizes Alison Jaggar’s account on how traditional
ethics lets women down in the following five ways by:
1. Demonstrating less concern for women’s opposed to men’s issues.
2. Trivializing the moral concerns that arise from the private real.
3. Suggesting that women are not as morally deep or mature as men.
4. Overrating traits that are considered culturally masculine such as intellect,
domination, independence, autonomy, hierarchy, duty or asceticism, while
underrating traits that are culturally feminine such as emotion, communication,
community, connection, peace, joy, interdependence, lack of hierarchy and sharing
5. Favoring ways of moral reasoning that are considered “male” over “female”. Male
moral reasoning often focuses on rights, universality, or impartiality. On the other

22

hand, female moral reasoning favors partiality, particularity, relationships and
responsibilities.
Needless to say, the point-of-view from which researchers assess and make judgements, in turn reflect
the way their research is navigated and how their arguments are formed. Ultimately, these stances are
reflected in the outside world through decisions on our policy, government allocation of funds and our
cultural values.
Not only are charitable tax benefits ultimately unethical, from a feminist perspective, but the
desired outcomes associated with incentivized giving could be achieved more appropriately through
other means. My arguments rests on these outlined feminist ethic values:
i) Prioritizing and meeting needs
ii) Taking empathetic, caring or emotional thought into moral decision making
iii) Prioritizing values that reflect community, equity, reciprocity and lack of hierarchy.
This argument is quite idealistic in its approach and aims, yet I would advocate, relevant and pragmatic
as well. As Racher (2007) postulates “[f]eminist ethics draws attention to the distinguishing
characteristics of relationships and the power within those relationships at individual, group, and
community levels” (p. 70). Evaluating the structures and systems in place within our society that
promote damaging power relationships allows us to dismantle them and make more well informed and
ethical decisions in our everyday lives.
VII. HISTORICAL CONTEXT FOR PHILANTHROPY AND CHARITABLE RELIEF
Thus far, I have highlighted some of the most prominent and pragmatic literature on charitable
relief, relating to economic perspectives and motivating factors of donation. Before diving into the
justifications and criticisms, I will supplement and frame the discussion with a historical overview that
illuminates some of the democratic flaws pervasive in charitable relief tax structures. A summary of
Peter D. Hall’s article Philanthropy, the Non-profit Sector & the Democratic Dilemma is used for this
purpose.

23

Hall’s (2013) paper explains the current relationship between government and philanthropy
emphasizing that a heavy component of charitable tax relief is centered on the prioritization of the
wealthy. This article exposes the democratic dilemmas associated with charitable relief. The democratic
issues are centrally related to the feminist values that have been outlined. North Americans, generally
perceive their current governing structure as being democratic, but upon looking deeper at governing
practice and structures, there seem to be accumulating functions that deteriorate the democratic ideal
and, in turn, undermine equity goals. According to Hall (2013), democratic theory was at its most pure
idealistic form during the eighteenth century when private involvement with elected government was
quite negatively received. There was considerable skepticism regarding any instruments being used to
further private interests or association. Over time the elite’s wealth and their agendas have increasingly
began to infiltrate the fabric of our society. This has been done largely through philanthropic avenues
advancing education, health care, cultural enterprises and so on. Skepticism over the motivation of
these philanthropic ventures have always been present and that skepticism has made the gradual
transformation into the structure of governance now, where philanthropic ventures serve as conduit for
political platforms, challenging at times. However, large monetary incentives were used and private
interests now infiltrate our social and political systems, incrementally eroding away at the level of
democratic purity step by step. These incremental changes in regulations altered society’s attitudes
toward foundations and philanthropy. In the 1880’s many large charitable donations were attempted
and initially refused, causing a series of collisions between elites and the government. These roadblocks
caused conflicts and debates, as the refusal of enormous charitable donations and bequests upon
government could at face value be viewed as a significant loss to a community, and perpetuated the
growing disparity in wealth. Pevnick (2013) notes that in 1913 the United States implemented a
deduction scheme intended to incentivize donations for the benefit of society at large: advancing
science, environmental endeavours, arts culture or social welfare needs. Around the same time, the first
income tax was implemented in the United States. (Benshalom, 2009). Following WWI, many

24

foundations became established and exerted influence within their areas of interest, affecting many
aspects of American life. Increasingly, philanthropy was being used as a tax avoidance mechanism,
much as it is today. For example, due to public concern, the government established the Cox and Reece
committees in 1952 and 1954 to determine the motives of tax exempt foundations and charities. These
committees criticized philanthropic tax exempt organizations for enabling donor power to control
education, media, promoting internationalism and moral relativism, all of which degrade democratic
governance (Hall, 2013).
It is interesting to note that; while at first philanthropic ventures were associated with the
political left, and the right wing largely criticised the involvement of philanthropy or non profits in
governance, this relationship gradually changed. In the 1960’s political conservative intellectuals such
as Lewis Powell and Irving Kristol, persuaded the right to use philanthropy in its institutional
infrastructure – a model which had previously allowed liberals to dominate the political arena. The shift
in attitude toward private involvement created the framework for the Republican revolution through
right wing foundations. “Once the darlings of the left, foundations and other non-profits quickly became
ubiquitous across the political spectrum as sources of policy and shapers of public opinion.” (Hall,
2013, p. 13)
Hall makes note of a series of US federal court decisions that dismantled regulations that had
been previously put in place in the 1970’s that were intended to protect the democratic process and
create barriers against the wealthy attempting to exert their power over the social and political realm.
Similar changes were made to tax exemption and deduction policies from 1960 through to the end of
the century (Hall, 2013). Criteria set out for tax exemption status gradually softened to the point that it
required that an organization's activities not “be illegal or impracticable, and that financial surpluses if
any, not be distributed to organizational principals” (Hall, 2013, p. 14). With such vague sets of criteria,
it seems almost any organization could apply. The list of activities that can be sponsored now by tax

25

deductible payments under the charitable umbrella has become quite vast, museums, zoos, university
libraries, parks, to name a few of the qualifying avenues Benshalom (2009) noted.
The shift in regulations and policies allowing private entities to gain space within traditional
governmental processes have gradually led to diminishing boundaries between both charitable
organizations and business, and between nonprofits and government that the current structure has
become riddled with democratic dilemmas.
Hall emphasizes that the transitions that have taken place have led to what Lester Salamon
argues is the modern welfare state, created by the lack of distinction between nonprofit and for-profit
organizations. Salomon refers to this as the marketization of welfare due to the take over of market type
business relationships in the social welfare realm (p. 17, 1993). There has been a halt in the transition
in recent years:
The fortuitous complementarities between private sector and the state described by Salamon
three decades ago have largely disappeared and have been replaced by an extraordinary
concentration of wealth and power in the hands of a few hundred individuals and corporations.
Government no longer has either the resources, or the authority to compensate for the
insufficiency of philanthropic resources (Hall, 2013, p. 15).
Unconstrained private philanthropy degrades democratic and political values. With the wealthy few
and corporations in power, there will likely be little push for change as those in power are pleased with
their privileges.
Charitable tax deductions are yet another facet of the democratic dilemma discussed by Hall
and an outcome of private philanthropy unconstrained. The analysis and historical overview that Hall
conducts brings to light some of the transitions in our cultural values and political environment that
have led to the current policies and regulations influencing philanthropic endeavours and show some
of the deeply embedded dilemmas within our governance that shape equity and democracy in every
community. These transitions have reassembled our political structures in a way that normalize the use
of charitable deduction relief, without major consideration of underlying moral dilemmas. A steady
stream of academic and intellectual criticism continue, but such concerns are not often discussed by the

26

general public in any depth. These quiet changes that continue to modify our democracy and majority
decision making process are at the heart of this discussion and should be thoroughly debated and
considered if we are striving to create more equitable and just societies.

VIII. JUSTIFICATIONS OF CHARITABLE TAX RELIEF
VIII. 1. EFFICIENCY JUSTIFICATIONS
VIII. 1.1 TREASURY AND FISCAL EFFICIENCY
Benshalom’s (2009) article “The dual subsidy theory of Charitable Deductions” is a thorough
democratic justification of the tax relief. The author puts forward that there are two categories of
justifications for charitable tax relief. One category of justifications is based on charitable tax relief
encouraging additional or potentially more appropriate spending on public goods. The idea behind this
rationale is that without these incentives or additional funding, goods will not be provided at a socially
optimal level. One could also think of this justification as “a transfer of funds that efficiently promotes
public spending.” (Benshalom, 2009, p.1050). Some justifications outlined by Benshalom pertain to
forms of efficiency; treasury or fiscal, allocation, collection and informational efficiency. The fiscal
efficiency justification follows when the influx of donations exceeds the loss in tax revenue and
government spending used to implement the policy. For treasury or fiscal efficiency justifications,
monetary benefits that accrue from implementing charitable credits or deductions can be seen as a
positive benefit to society.
An addition to the fiscal efficiency justification is the argument that there will always be a
portion of society who contributes with the intent to itemize and claim their charitable tax relief, but
for whatever reason, donate but do not claim. From personal experience, tax credits have acted as a
giving incentive; however, at the end of the tax year I have been too careless to claim the relief. This
would likely be the case particularly for small donations. These donations mean that society can benefit
from the increase in donations and community welfare while the funds are not taken away from the

27

government. This opting out of the benefit system would be difficult to actually quantify but it seems
reasonable to say that there is a small additional benefit to society produced by individuals who donate
with the intent to itemize, but ultimately do not.
~VIII. 1.1 AGAINST TREASURY AND FISCAL EFFICIENCY
The implementation of tax relief prioritizes the privileged groups over the needs of the
majority, and maintaining the distribution of wealth in a hierarchical structure perpetuates the
oppression of the disenfranchised. In order to address the entirety of the issue and reach a more
equitable society, each individual would require a fair and equal say over the way that resources are
allocated. In the current system, top income earners are able to exert power engage in privatized social
engineering through the distribution of forgone funds. The resulting moral implications are that those
who dictate the distribution of funds are not fully aware of the needs of those to which the funding is
directed and will therefore act out of personal rather than public interest. Thus, it is not reasonable to
assess charitable tax relief solely based on individual monetary considerations. For example, if a
philanthropist donates a large sum of money to a hospital, and that money goes to improving a surgical
centre. That improvement, while generally benefitting the population of those who access those services
may not help those who are most in need because while the donor and those in the donors socioeconomic class may directly benefit from such a centre, the hospital has more significant needs in its
emergency wing that treats the general public and the disadvantaged in much larger numbers than the
surgical centre. As a result, the most oppressed members of society still face the barriers to oppression.
A more ethically appropriate way to allocate forgone funds would be to give oppressed populations the
tools that they need to increase their well being.
VIII. 1.2 COLLECTING AND ALLOCATION EFFICIENCY
Levmore (1998) puts forward several arguments that appeal to a variety of the literature, some
apply to forms of efficiency that Benshalom (2009) has outlined, specifically, collecting and allocative
efficiency. Levmore (1998) argues charitable relief is a way for taxpayers to express their preferences

28

while minimizing inefficient bureaucratic downfalls that “The tax deduction essentially casts the
government as a financing partner, with taxpayer-donors servicing as intermediaries or agents who
choose the providers of, or indeed the very existence of, certain services.” (p. 389). The bureaucratic
downfalls associated with having government directly allocate all government funds argue on the side
of charitable tax schemes. The process of allocating funds through legislation can be more costly,
inefficient and tedious than simply allowing citizens to choose their own charity. Political
representatives often hold polarized views on public needs, which can cause decision making to be
much more difficult than allowing taxpayers to quickly make decisions on community welfare. Within
the political structure, there could be legislators who possess power and may appreciate the ability to
use their power to make decisions with regard to social welfare needs. However, there may also be less
powerful legislators who prefer the tax relief as a tool to persuade their constituents because they know
they lack influence in spending decisions (Levmore, 1998). Benshalom (2009) suggests the
inefficiencies of costly bureaucratic tax collection can be circumvented slightly since donations
substitute to some degree for government spending, but this is only the case if charitable organization
are more efficient than government spending processes. However, it is generally accepted that
charitable organizations are less restricted by costly guidelines, more innovative, able to take more risks
and are not constrained to the same bureaucratic systems. These markers logically point to much more
efficient spending on the part of charitable organizations.
~VIII. 1.2 AGAINST COLLECETING AND ALLOCATION EFFICIENCY
The allocation of taxpayer’s money through individual donors is more efficient in the sense that it is
not being allocated through the government structure, hindered by costly bureaucratic processes. But
once again this perspective puts monetary concerns over the needs of citizenry and equity. Just because
the government is saving money on bureaucratic costs by having money diverted directly to charities
does not mean that money is not being lost as a result of the costs associated with welfare needs. Nor

29

does it ensure that the charities being selected actually meet public needs in an impartial and equitable
manner.
Although collection efficiency may have some merit in that taxpayers are not keen on paying
more than they have to, it seems unlikely that individuals are going to refrain from paying their taxes
without the incentive of a charitable tax credit. In reality individuals only receive back a portion of their
contribution.
VIII.1.3 INFORMATION EFFICIENCY
Finally, it could be argued that taxpayers have a more complex and diverse understanding of
the needs of a community. Levmore(1998) implies that charitable relief can be a helpful tool in
gathering information on preferences, as is the concept of collecting insight based off of “voter turnout”.
These concepts reflect the same premise as informational efficiency. Levmore goes so far as to conjure
the notion that taxpayers are more conscious of their allocation of government funds and donate with
greater care and consideration than the government. For example, an individual may have more astute
awareness of the need for a new piece of medical imaging equipment in their local community than
does the provincial government. Implementing charitable tax relief lowers the price of giving and
allows the individual to directly subsidize the medical imaging equipment on their own. This may be
one of the circumstances that Levmore (1998) proposes community members have better information
than legislation.
~ VIII.1.3 AGAINST INFORMATION EFFICIENCY
And yet, the idea that taxpayers have a superior ability to address community needs that the
government tasked with overseeing the public trust is illogical as government representatives are
elected by the population in a democratic manner in order to implement and manage social and
economic issues. The concept that individuals can circumvent the systems that have intentionally been
selected to create a just and fair society is immoral from as feminist values perspective. It also seems
unlikely given the data reviewed that suggest individuals donate based on brand recognition and self

30

perception. These factors do not give strength to the notion that individuals will make better informed
allocation decisions. Most importantly, governing agents are provided with tangible empirical data and
substantial experience that give them the tools they need to make the most appropriate allocation
decision

VIII.2. PLURALISM AND TYRANNY OF THE MAJORITY
The promotion of pluralism is echoed through literature as an argument in favor of charitable
tax relief. Izzo (1993) defends this stance on the premise that deductions in the US encourage diverse
assortments of social services. For example, government actors can not easily endorse funding for
controversial art projects as, those representatives may have to answer to offended constituents.
Therefore, opening up charitable relief for a wide variety of organizations that support these arts
directives can produce a more diverse and fulfilling culture. The assumption is that allowing taxpayers
to “vote” through charitable relief gives platforms for smaller groups and non-profit organizations to
flourish. This argument bears similarity to the “tyranny of the majority” concerns, also asserted by Izzo
(1993) which argue that minority interests will be ignored or pushed aside by the government in favor
of pleasing the majority. Thus, promoting pluralism or diminishing “tyranny of the majority” are
thought to protect minority interests. Weeks McCormack (2010) articulates that if government is left
to allocate funds, the most popular interests will be addressed first, leaving minority interests or
organizations with weak support bases ignored. Benshalom (2009) adds that in attempting to please as
many people as possible through democratic majoritarian taxing-spending decision making processes,
the allocation results can be crude and very few are truly pleased with spending decisions. Again, in
this case, implementing some form of charitable tax relief gives individuals control, be it
proportionately to their incomes (p. 1078).

~VIII.2. AGAINST PLURALISM AND TYRANNY OF THE MAJORITY

31

An aspect of the pluralism justification that is not often considered, though, are the negative
externalities that can arise from opening up charitable tax relief. While it allows taxpayers to “vote”
with their money, which can result in positive cultural assets, tax-payers also have the ability to donate
to organizations that could be harmful. Hall’s (2013) article, draws on the vague limitations imposed
upon qualifying organizations in the US, arguing that a level of moral consideration ought to be taken
before allowing individuals to distribute foregone government revenue. With the vague guidelines for
what constitutes, qualifying organizations, it would be easy for taxpayers to redeem credits or
deductions that contribute to compromising enterprises. The feminist set of values outlined above might
be a valuable tool in establishing a viable set of evaluation criteria. Regardless, it would still be very
challenging to determine which organizations should warrant government support. Weeks McCormack
(2010) draws attention to the broad set of criteria that has been set for qualifying organizations in the
US for individuals to receive deductions on some similar ethical premises regarding harm reduction
and negative externalities. The control that is granted through charitable tax relief results in
undemocratic flaws that give control mainly to those with high incomes. Democracy, by its nature will
leave some feeling dissatisfied, but this imperfection does not diminish the virtues it provides in terms
of fairness and equity. Let us not ignore that allowing taxpayers to “vote” through charitable tax relief
leaves low income earners feeling dissatisfied also. The sums they can donate would be meager and
lack influence in comparison to high income earners. In either scenario there will be parties who are
dissatisfied, making the point seem moot. When authors refer to charitable deduction as a way to “vote”
we must remember that the word is being used as a metaphor. Technically, voting, infers equal access,
where individuals are each given the same share of say, but this is not the case for charitable tax relief.
Benshalom (2009) points out that pluralism is not always a free-standing value that contributes
to the democratic decision making process within mainstream democratic perspectives. It is important
to remember that there is no direct relationship between pluralism and a more democratic society.
Benshalom (2009) points out that pluralism can be a result of the democratic process but that

32

participation does not guarantee its integrity. Thus, pluralism is a possible externality of charitable
relief, however, empirically, the result of charitable relief may or may not benefit pluralism. In fact,
due to the most prominently affected demographic of donors, there could be less influence on pluralism
as a whole and instead it could more likely promote pluralism of the elite segment of interests in society.
This vision of pluralism is potentially not what one would envision promoting, when thinking of the
charitable benefits from tax relief systems (Benshalom, 2009).
Imbalanced power within society is concern that gives rise to the pluralism argument in the
first place. If individuals in society had equal access to resources and similar privileges across groups,
there would be less concern for minority interests. In order to eliminate the depth of inequality that
causes such economic disparities in the populace the structure that perpetuates the inequality needs to
be dismantled. In some cases minority interests would be more aptly met by the government, who are
required to address needs in an accountable manner, specifically relating to women and children, racial
minorities, immigrant populations, LGBTQ+, or any other minority interest group who cannot advocate
for themselves. The largest concerns with these charitable tax credits is that it perpetuates inequality by
ensuring that top income earner priorities and values are given more social influence than those in lower
socio-economic groups. If these issues are addressed, minority groups will rise to have a more equitable
voice in the discussion. As a result, the tax incentives themselves become less relevant in relation to
tyranny of the majority justifications.
This justification is also flawed based on price elasticity and impure altruism considerations,
clearly the charitable sector will not wither away to nothing if charitable tax relief is eliminated. Hence,
many will continue to contribute to small organizations and charitable endeavors, positively affecting
pluralistic goals but without removing funds from the public revenue stream.
VIII.3. REDISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH
A simple justification for charitable tax relief is that it could be beneficial for redistribution of
wealth. If it is true that a credit or deduction is fiscally efficient, and that large portions of donations

33

come from high income earners (Turcotte, 2012), then the policy will distributes wealth across a
multitude of sectors. In terms of the aim of this paper, redistribution of wealth would promote
dismantling hierarchical structures and barriers to equity.
~VIII.3. AGAINST REDISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH
Potentially, redistribution of wealth is a positive externality associated with charitable tax
relief. However, there are likely more efficacious policy options that could be adopted to reduce the
large disparities between rich and poor. While it is true that incentivising, and thus increasing the
redirection of money to welfare endeavors could address some of the outlined feminist values, it falls
short in fixing the actual problems, because in many ways, the current tax relief structure still
contributes to and perpetuates the same issues of equity and hierarchy. The policy also fails to account
for the free riders among high income earners, who chose not to contribute at all; the system is designed
with the assumption that if taxation is lower on upper-classes and giving is incentivized then donations
will help fill in the needs left unfilled by the government. By not giving at all, the upper classes take
advantage of the lower taxation rates without offsetting the charitable giving that is expected of them.
Hence, the rich continue to accumulate wealth with no unified recourse on the negative effects to
society, as the money is kept out of both the welfare and charitable systems.
VIII.4. THE WORLD WITHOUT CHARITABLE INCENTIVES
Levmore (1998) asks readers to imagine the world without the charitable relief that supplies
significant additional funds back into the community that tax collections, would have to increase in
response. They admit, however, that this argument barely holds up, as the commensurate hike in taxes
would likely be applied progressively to high-income earners, of which some would be contributing
large sums anyhow. Imagining what the world might be like without charitable relief, Levmore (1998)
speculates that the mere challenges faced with revoking tax relief policy should be taken into
consideration, as the responsibility of administering welfare support currently taken care of through
taxpayer process could cause initial turbulence. They suggests that in the United States, congress seems

34

to lack the desire to reclaim such welfare responsibilities delegated away through charitable relief (p.
430).
~VIII.4. AGAINST THE WORLD WITHOUT CHARITABLE INCENTIVES
This plea is somewhat hyperbolic given that a significant portion of data on charitable giving
implies that charitable sectors will exist and thrive with or without incentives. For example some sectors
display inelastic behaviour based on the price of giving, such as the religious sector. If the most
responsive demographic of people are high income earners, a more appropriate form of taxation should
be considered. Andreoni’s (1989) work also supports the premise that the charitable sector will survive
without tax incentives based on his theory of warm-glow and impure altruism.
To address the fear of turbulence that could be caused by revoking current policy, it may be
also be helpful to consider path dependence. Path dependence is the idea that outcomes and decisions
result from previously presented structures and understandings. In other words, the rationale for
continued use of a product (in this case charitable credits or deductions), should not be that the product
is already in place. This agument against inertia is especially pertinent when considering human rights
and equity concerns. For example, while it was very challenging to rescind slavery, which resulted in
the American Civil War, the challenge of this transition did not supersede the importance of its overall
outcomes. A similar case could be made for the dismantling of a charitable tax policy that undermines
democratic ideals, and in so doing grants disproportionate power to privileged groups. The notion that
the US or Canadian legislators do not care for the added responsibility of welfare concerns is a very
poor reason for ignoring the general welfare of its citizentry. It should also be pointed out that the
degree of support for welfare concerns also depends upon which political party is in power and their
respective values.
VIII.5. PROMOTES A CULTURE OF GIVING
In the section on charitable behaviour, I noted that Pevnick (2013) asserted that charitable tax
incentives reinforce positive moral behaviour, which in turn may cause positive spillover effects by

35

stimulating good relationships and social capital. This theory could be considered a justification for
charitable relief.
~VIII.5 AGAINST PROMOTES A CULTURE OF GIVING
The question at hand, though, is whether charitable tax incentives are the most appropriate way
of reinforcing generosity or positive moral behaviour. Alternatively, Andreoni (1989) claims that this
phenomenon of increased moral behaviour is better seen within societies that have introduced higher
taxation for high income earners. This alternative to charitable tax benefits, of introducing higher taxes
to compensate for the loss in donor contributions to charitable causes, could account for persistent freerider issues and create a more democratic and thus equitable society, thereby addressing feminist values.
Lack of documentation to support strength of crowding out theory, paired with the evidence that
suggests a more egalitarian system which redistributes income induces moral behaviour and does not
reduce generosity, minimizes the validity of using Pevnick’s (2013) assertions as about fostering a
culture of giving a good justification for charitable relief.
IX. CRITICISMS OF CHARITABLE TAX RELIEF
In addition to the critiques of arguments for charitable tax benefits based on arguments for
pluralism and increased morale, the democratic downfalls of charitable tax credits have been identified.
Concerns arise because of the disproportionate influence that particular demographics of people possess
through the charitable tax relief system in that the system gives weighted privilege to the wealthy.
Essentially, in the current system, the state is subsidizing charitable contributions. However, each
individual does not receive an equal share in distributing the foregone government resources. Rather,
those with higher incomes will be able to receive more kickback and have a larger voice in forgone
government funds. Thus, metaphors suggesting that charitable donations constitute a “vote” for
particular means and methods of social welfare, ignore the fundamental distinction between voting and
spending: a single vote is allowed to every citizen ensuring equivalence in civic influence, while money
offers deprotonate and distorting influence.

36

A representative democratic society is generally understood as an organized group of people
in a community who are governed by a representative body constituted by individuals have been voted
into power. With this rough understanding in mind, it seems reasonable to assume that government
funds ought to be distributed through this platform with those representatives making decisions about
how funds are best distributed. In the context of these charitable tax benefits, Reppetti (2008) asks us
to question the goal of democracy, pointing out that that the aim of the democratic government is to
create a just life for everyone. They suggest that democracies should strive for an equal opportunity for
individual self-realization amongst its citizenry and that our governance and tax policies should
promote and maximize this potential. Of course, the concept of a perfect democracy is idealistic in
nature and can never be fully achieved, so clearly there are always limitations of how equitable any
democratic society can be. However, the aspiration of a relatively fair or just political life for every
individual should not be dismissed out of hand. Han and Dong (2006) present a pragmatic view of
democracy as “a way to social compromise, whose aim is to guarantee a relatively fair political life”
(p. 1).
The allocation of funds toward the promotion of general welfare is clearly a primary function
of the governing body. Therefore, implementing charitable tax schemes that allow wealthy the ability
to individually direct a disproportionate amount of foregone government revenue seems understandably
problematic. Hall (2013) points to the slow demise of our democratic governance structures,
highlighting the undemocratic flaw in charitable tax relief. Benshalom’s (2009) discussion on the
theory of charitable deductions reflects the same criticism. He identifies that charitable tax relief
contributes to the deterioration of the democratic ideal, due to the donor’s ability to allocate public
funds based on personal values: “This allocation of public funds differs fundamentally from the canonic
democratic way of reaching spending decisions through majority voting and coalition building.”
(Benshalom, p. 1048, 2009).

37

The allocation of foregone government funds made largely by the wealthy raises the concern
that the allocation of these funds may reflect a privileged assessment of community needs. It is a
reasonable assumption that charitable organizations chosen by the wealthy will reflect the values and
preferences of the wealthy, and may also ultimately benefit the wealthy more than others (Pevnick,
2013). Benshalom (2009) concurs, saying that “since rich taxpayers may exhibit different philanthropic
preferences than other social groups. Charitable relief ends up skewing public funds to support elite
institutions that primarily serve the upper classes.” (p. 1074). The way that these distortions play out in
practice can be seen in studies that point to the way that high income earners contribute more to
academic and cultural avenues than to charities that would have been selected by lower income
individuals (Benshalom, 2009).
However, the degree to which these charitable tax schemes are undemocratic vary based on the
structure. Charitable tax deduction structures are significantly less democratic than credit structures.
Izzo (1993) points out that deduction systems can effectively magnify the disparity between chosen
charities. The amplification is caused by high earners ability to donate more paired with their deduction
increase as the marginal tax rate increases. Low income earners donate less and are also less likely to
itemize. While high income earners have more to donate, they are more likely to itemize and are also
entitled to deduct larger amounts based on their marginal tax rate. So due to their large subsidy based
on their marginal tax rate, the wealthy can again be left with more funds to allocate, essentially allowing
a disproportionate say in how government funds are distributed (Izzo,1993).
Some question the entire structure of our governance and tax system, and its collection and
redistribution of income, arguing that income is individually deserved and therefore the government
has no right to it. However, Pevnick (2013) disputes this notion, pointing out that this thinking is
conceptually flawed. This is because all of the structures that enable income are facilitated by the
infrastructural and legal systems that rely on the support from taxes. Most income earners rely on the
infrastructure and systems facilitated by taxes, making incomes and taxes interconnected and dependant

38

on each other. Therefore, it seems reasonable to deny claims that incomes are an individuals and that
taxation is a “theft” of personal value (Pevnick, 2013). Even if we were to grant the premise that
governments have no right to individuals’ incomes, it does not follow that high-income earners should
be entitled to a disproportionate say as to the allocation say as to the allocation of government revenue.
Thus, a heavier tax burden for high-earners seems to be a requirement for justice.
Setting aside the macro arguments, credits and deductions have a way of altering the micro
level of the charitable landscape itself. De Bita and Twombly (2005) offer the criticism that
incentivizing charitable relief could impact smaller organizations negatively in that if small charities
do not formally qualify for charitable relief, individuals will be less likely to contribute to them.
Individuals may choose to donate to larger organizations that qualify for tax credits rather than smaller
charities (De Bita &.Twombly, 2005, p. 60). This argument against charitable relief is supplemented
by data that illustrates brand recognition in donors. Which suggests that donors may choose to donate
to these larger, recognized charities because they are more likely to qualify for tax relief resulting in
less support for small organizations.
Additionally, there are some donation sectors in which the positive benefit on society is less
clear. For example, it is tough to determine the externalities associated with contributions to arts and
culture or religious services, especially from a third party perspective. Although it could be argued that
everyone benefits from a thriving community with museums or art exhibits, it is tough to say exactly
how it affects low income groups who may not have the money to attend many of the donor sponsored
events. This is also the case for religious services which often bring about controversial values or
polarized attitudes. Some negative externalities can be associated with funding charitable organizations,
Weeks McCormack (2010) postulates that while some of these negative externalities present slight
harms, some represent profound harms, such as exclusion polices “there should be a limit to the types
of harm that a government can subsidize.”(p.1025) for example a recognized charitable religious
organization that advocates anti-LGBTQ values or promotes anti-abortion laws. It seems reasonable to

39

question the subsidization of organizations that foster values that are in opposition with constitutional
and human rights standards. Benshalom (2009) brings up another aspect of subsidization of religious
non-profit organizations when he refers to the non-religious allocation of funds identifying that there
are circumstances where charitable relief has been denied based on church involvement in partisan
political activity (p. 1092, 2009). Despite the clear reasonability of such regulations, these injustices
are a nuisance to enforce or even challenge. Rationally, in United States policy, the IRS posits that any
contributions being channeled toward political campaigns do not qualify for charitable deductions
(Benshalom, 2009). Under this logic, other charitable organizations indirectly channeling funds
towards political activity should be kyboshed. This should be considered in terms of charitable relief
policy decisions.
X. DISCUSSION
The literature reviewed, points to many of the positive externalities associated with charitable tax
relief and these externalities seem to regularly outweigh any negative externalities in practice, which is
why many developed countries employ charitable tax relief policies. However, these rationales are
often tied to simple monetary equations and superficial illusions of goodwill. The government
incentivises charitable giving and determines if the influx of donations outweighs government costs of
facilitating the policy.
Now that some ethical foundations have been formed, I will continue by exploring the two
premises that were articulated earlier. First that charitable tax relief perpetuates power imbalances and
inequality. Second that predominately androcentric values are latent in charitable tax relief policy
rationales.

X. 1. PERPETUATION OF POWER IMBALANCE
The literature reviewed on charitable relief makes clear that many benefits and positive externalities
are associated with these tax schemes. It cannot be argued that charitable tax relief can bring some
benefit to society. However the intent with this paper is to look a step beyond some of the simple

40

justifications and assess the schemes from a holistic basis. To summarize, forms of tax legislation depict
our cultural values and priorities and this tax scheme seems to prioritize the wealthy and not the
community as a whole. When one looks closer at the information gathered pertaining to price elasticity,
treasury efficiency, the U-shaped curve phenomena, and donor statistics, it seems that an overwhelming
portion of the discussion is shaped by fiscal concerns and by prioritizing the wealthiest taxpayers
values. There is a growing body of research demonstrating that policy outcomes are generally dictated
by the rich (Oh, 2017). For example, price elasticity demonstrates the responsiveness of the incentive
across sectors and suggests that the demographic most responsive to charitable tax incentives are high
income earners. The donation statistics explored by Turcotte (2012) express the dominant portion of
contributions that are made up by the wealthiest percentages of the population. The U-shaped curve
phenomena also represents the significant donor contributions made by wealthy donors and points to
the lack of responsiveness the low income earners would likely have to charitable relief incentives due
to the demographic that makes up the trend. Additionally, justifications based on treasury efficiency
rely heavily on the wealthy to hold up their positive outcomes. All of these reviewed factors assessing
charitable relief point to the wealthy as representing the group most influential in determining what
exact benefit the community will receive. And of course it is the wealthy who receive the greatest
benefit from tax relief. Prioritizing the privileged groups does not reflect the feminist values I have set
out.
If the most influential and benefiting group in the distribution of government funds are the
wealthy and high income earners, we ought to consider more about the effects these structures in
governance have on our community. By allowing this demographic additional “votes” in foregone
government resources, it may be fair to assume a disproportionate amount of power will be given to
those who already have many privileges. Statistically women make less on each dollar than men do for
their work (Moyser, 2017) (Data and Statistics. United States Department of Labour, 2017). They also
hold fewer managerial, CEO, political, or lucrative positions of power in the work force (Brown, 2017).

41

These facts alters the distribution of wealth to favor men. These forms of subordination extend far
beyond gender to discrimination on racial or sexual orientation lines. These forms of discrimination
likely compound, causing certain demographics to endure financial disadvantages, leaving them with
significantly less autonomy and power than those who can afford to take advantage of charitable tax
benefits. Hence, the systematic injustice is not simply that those with high incomes are granted more
say in forgone government funds which may give way to high income interests, but that the most
vulnerable portions of society will be under-represented beneficiaries of those so-called charities. These
groups that endure discrimination, require equal representation in the allocations of government
revenue. This evaluation demonstrates the way in which an undemocratic tax scheme can perpetuate
inequalities. As Gilligan suggests, men and women have different voices, values and perspectives
which they use to navigate the world. It seems reasonable to conclude that when disproportionate
portions of donor contributions are being guided by straight white males, the allocation will reflect
these values. Charitable tax relief is yet another subtle way that subordinated populations voices are
being undermined. It seems counterproductive for the government to reinforce the perpetuation of
privileged value sets if its aim is for an equitable and just society.
It seems fair to point out the shortcomings associated with the wealthy directing donor
expenditures. It is reasonable to assume those who have not experienced the hardships of some forms
of subordination and oppression will be inept at assessing and prioritizing the most critical community
needs in an empathetic way. Turcotte (2012) found that next to religious organizations, health and social
services received the most donations. However, overall contributions are distributed across many
charitable sectors. Arts and culture, sports and recreation, hospitals, and education also receive
substantial subsidization through charitable tax relief. Contributions made by top income earners may
be well-meaning and likely provide benefit to a broad group of people. Nonetheless, they do not
accurately reflect the preferences of those who lack financial privileges and their unique respective
insights. This disconnect makes the system fundamentally flawed in that maintaining the flow of

42

charitable transactions through top income earner preferences can maintain inequalities by keeping
wealth and privilege limited to a certain bracket of the population. This outcome is undesirable from a
feminist care ethic stance. For example, the subsidization of an art gallery or symphony orchestra may
be arguably beneficial to society, from a cultural stance, however, it is hard to say if it accurately address
the needs of those in lower socio-economic standing because that demographic is underrepresented.
These cultural causes tend not to offer aid in such a way that oppressed groups such as women can
overcome structural boundaries. We cannot expect the wealthy to look after subordinated populations
and aptly understand their needs as the wealthy may have ulterior motives associated with dominance,
power or greed that undermine their ability to act morally.
Similar concerns arise from the section devoted to the history of philanthropy and its invasion
of the political sphere. There is the strong possibility that charitable tax relief fosters and indirectly
subsidizes political involvement through non-profits, as can be seen most prominently in charitable
organizations that bring in exorbitant dynastic wealth. We might assume that enormous donations
collected from groups whose funds seem limitless could encourage corrupt or unethical behaviour.
Though regulations are commonly implemented to diminish these negative externalities and partisan
political activity, the government is limited in its ability to enforce unethical transactions from taking
place. When powerful wealthy donors’ desire control, and charitable organizations with political
involvement are in need of funding, regulations may not stand in their way. With that in mind, charitable
tax relief seems even less democratic than previously considered. According to Benshalom (2009) this
element of political involvement makes charitable tax relief seem not only undemocratic but borderline
anti-democratic. These concerns illustrate the deeply embedded barriers to equity.
One might forget when considering what forms of governance are most appropriate, while
being faced with many positive externalities surrounding the charitable tax relief schemes, that there
are often policy alternatives that could produce similar results while at the same time dismantling
barriers to equity for those who face oppression. For example, consider the benefit that can be produced

43

when one thinks about a philanthropist donating large sums of money to an educational institution. One
might think the philanthropist is noble and altruistic yet the mere need for these types of philanthropy
point to a failed funding system; we ought not to rely on philanthropy to provide necessary services for
the citizenry. Alternatively, if a more appropriate tax measures were implemented to create additional
government funds, these philanthropic endeavors might not be necessary in the first place as the
government, could use funds to distribute opportunity for underprivileged groups and minimize barriers
to success instead of perpetuating power imbalances and maintaining wealth and privilege within a
limited population.
X. 2. ANDROCENTRIC VALUE PARADIGM
If we look at tax relief from a broader ethical scale, more concerns arise than input-output and
monetary computations. Even though a large portion of the reviewed literature focuses on fiscal
equations as a major form of justification, the monetization and economic foci of the discussion do not
reflect a feminist ethic which would advocate for emotional and value-laden considerations. The
acceptance of charitable tax relief reflects a form of male biased set of values because the use of tax
schemes that grant increased benefit to those with wealth suggests a comfortability with dominance,
power, hierarchy, independence of choice and rights over capital that are not commonly reflected or
advocated for under a feminist ethic. Although charitable tax relief might, on first assessment, be
implemented for the needy, it seems fairly easy to demonstrate that in reality, the tax scheme lacks a
level of care for those who are truly in need and primarily benefit privileged high-income earners.
If we recognize the male centric value systems prioritized in charitable tax relief, all of the
previous justifications become quite weak in comparison from the feminist ethic. Thus, it is incumbent
upon us to reject arguments that prioritize the bureaucratic, allocation, collection or informational
efficiency that are often achieved through charitable relief schemes, and advocate for policies that work
to break down barriers to equity and foster human rights and justice.
XI. FURTHER RESEARCH TOPICS

44

Another avenue of study to explore is the effects of charitable relief on corporations and their ethical
ramifications from a feminist perspective. There are similar ethical concerns associated with the
externalities and outcomes when corporations dictate the allocation of foregone government revenue.
Corporations are essentially investment vehicles unlike individual taxpayers, making the outcomes
substantially different and their behaviour at times even less desirable or moral. There are some clear
similarities in outcomes regarding democratic or equity concerns that could be addressed.
The literature explored emphasizes that individuals often choose to give based on moral rather
than monetary rationales. If this is true, additional research should be done into developing methods
that harness charitable propensities and cultivate feminist ethic values of community, equity and care.
It is possible that there are alternative methods for encouraging benevolent behaviour that alleviate
some of the negative externalities associated with charitable tax relief.
Investigating the implications of taxing top income earners more by configuring progressive
tax structures could provide more evidence either for or against the elimination of charitable tax relief.
It may be beneficial to explore additional avenues on how restructuring the tax rates might effect social
capital and community goals within the realm of feminist values.
XII. CONCLUSIONS
It seems apparent many outcomes that are supplemented by charitable relief are not being met
and there is a current need for assistance in many cultural, health, recreational, social services
endeavors. The literature that has been assessed points to a failed system that relies on the individuals
who are not currently obligated to provide welfare services to fill in the gaps that government
supposedly can not optimally supply. This paper brings attention to the poor rationales associated with
justifications for charitable tax relief structures, as well as those in support of revoking them. The
assessment points to the absence of female-centric values and that this absence has contributed to policy
choices that have caused shortfalls associated with power imbalances and inequality. I have suggested
addressing welfare concerns by restructuring marginal tax schemes. An increase in government revenue

45

from top income earners at a level that positions the government to adequately take on welfare concerns
seems like a feasible option. This modification in how North American society deals with social needs
can alleviate many of the ethical concerns that have been examined.
This exploration of charitable tax relief assessed from a feminist ethics view demonstrates how
pervasive and ubiquitous structures are in our society that perpetuate and maintain particular
disadvantages and power imbalances. Charitable tax relief is a prime example of a commonly used and
widely accepted policy that prioritizes the wealthy and impedes the promotion of equity. Understanding
this tax policy in a holistic way illustrates its strengths and weaknesses. This critique allows us to expose
barriers that are built into our governance in an attempt to better understand systemic disadvantages
certain populations have. It is the first step toward dismantling the barriers and creating a more idealistic
society.

References
Alexander, L., & Moore, M. (2016) Deontological Ethics, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy,
Edward N. Zalta (ed.), retrieved from:
https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2016/entries/ethics-deontologica/

46

Andreoni, J. (1989). Giving with Impure Altruism: Applications to Charity and Ricardian
Equivalence. Journal of Political Economy, 97(6), 1447-1458.
Andreoni. J. (1995). Cooperation in Public-Goods Experiments: Kindness or Confusion? The
American Economic Review, 85(4), 891-904. Retrieved from
http://www.jstor.org.ezproxy.tru.ca/stable/2118238
Andreoni, J. (1995). Warm-Glow Versus Cold-Prickle: The Effects of Positive and Negative Framing
on Cooperation in Experiments. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 110(1), 1-21.
Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org.ezproxy.tru.ca/stable/2118508
Andreoni, J., Brown, E., & Rischall, I. (2003). Charitable giving by married couples: Who decides
and why does it matter? The Journal of Human Resources, 38(1), 111-133.
Benshalom, I. (2009). The dual subsidy theory of charitable deductions. Indiana Law Journal. 84,
1047-1097.
Berkley, B. (2014). Giving Well: The Ethics of Philanthropy. Mind, 123(489), 220-223.
doi:10.1093/mind/fzu029
Brown, A. (2017). The Data on Women Leaders. Pew Research Center: Social and Democraphic
Trends. Retrieved from
http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2017/03/17/the-data-on-women-leaders/
Canada Revenue Agency. (2017) Charitable Donation Tax Credit Rates. Retrieved from
http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/chrts-gvng/dnrs/svngs/clmng1b3-eng.html

Code, Lorraine (1981) “Is the Sex of the Knower Epistemologically Significant?”
Metaphilosophy 12 (3-4):267-276
De Vita, C. J., & Twombly, E. C. (2005). Who gains from charitable tax credit programs?: The
Arizona model. Public Administration Review, 65(1), 57-63.
Duff, D. G. (2004). Tax treatment of charitable contributions in Canada: Theory, practice and
reform. Osgoode Hall Law Journal, 42(1), 47-97.
Fack, G., & Landais, C. (2010). Are tax incentives for charitable giving efficient?: Evidence from
France. American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, 2(2), 117-114.
Gilligan, C. (1982) In a different voice. United States of America.
Hall, P. D. (2013). Philanthropy, the nonprofit sector & the democratic dilemma. Daedalus, the
Journal of the American Academy of Arts & Sciences, 142(2), 1-20.
Han, Z., & Dong, L. (2006) Democracy as a way to social Compromise, Frontiers if Philosophy in
China, 1(1), 1-5.

47

Harding, S. (1993) “Rethinking Standpoint Epistemology: ‘What is Strong Objectivity?’” Feminist
Epistemologies: Thinking Gender Linda Alcoff and Elizabeth Potter (Eds) New York:
Routledge. 1993.
Hartsock, N. (1983) “The Feminist Standpoint: Developing the Ground for a Specifically Feminist
Historical Materialism,” In Discovering Reality: Feminist Perspectives on Epistemology,
Metaphysics, Methodology, and Philosophy of Science, ed. Sandra Harding and Merrill
Hintikka. Dordrecht, Holland: D. Reidel.
Hossain, B., & Lamb, L. (2015). An assessment of the impact of tax incentives relative to socioeconomic characteristics on charitable giving in Canada. International Review Of Applied
Economics, 29(1), 65-80. doi:10.1080/02692171.2014.945992
Hossain, B., & Lamb, L. (2012). Price elasticities of charitable giving across donation sectors in
Canada: Is the Tax incentive effective. International Scholarly Research Network,
Economics, 2012, 1-6.
Hood, R. D., Martin, S. A., & Osberg, L. S. (1977). Economic determinants of individual charitable
donations in Canada. The Canadian Journal of Economics, 10(4), 653-669.
Izzo, T. (1993). A full spectrum of light: Rethinking the charitable contribution Deduction. University
of Pennsylvania Law Review, 141(6), 2371-2402.
Johnson, R., & Cureton, A. (2018) Kant's Moral Philosophy, The Stanford Encyclopedia of
Philosophy, Edward N. Zalta (ed.). Retrieved from
https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2018/entries/kant-moral/
Kumru, C. S., & Vesterlund, L. (2010). The effect of status on charitable giving. Journal of Public
Economic Theory, 12(4), 709-735.
List, J. A. (2011). The market for charitable giving. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 25(2).
157-180.
Levmore, S. (2000) Voting with intensity. Stanford Law Review, 53(1). 111-161
McCormack, S. W. (2010). Taking the good with the bad: Recognizing their negative externalities
created by charities and their implications for the charitable deduction. Arizona Law Review,
52(4), 977-1026.
Moyser, M. (2017). Women and Paid Work, Statistics Canada. Retrieved from Statistics Canada
Website:
http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/89-503-x/2015001/article/14694-eng.htm
Oh, J. S. (2017). Are progressive tax rates progressive policy. N.Y.U. L. Rev. 92,1909-1976.
Pennerstorfer, A., & Neumayr, M. (2016). Examining the association of welfare state expenditure,
non-profit regimes and charitable giving. International Society for Third Sector Research. 28,
532-555.

48

Pevnick, R. (2013). Democratizing the nonprofit sector. The Journal of Political Philosophy, 21(3),
260-282.
Pynes, J. E. (2000). Are women underrepresented as leaders of nonprofit organizations? Review of
Public Personnel Administration, 35-49.
Racher, F. (2007). The Evolution of Ethics for Community Practice. Journal of Community Health
Nursing, 24(1), 65-76.
Repetti, J. R. (2001). Democracy, taxes, and wealth. New York University Law Review, 76(3), 825.
Riyanto, Y., & Zhang, J. (2014). An egalitarian system breeds generosity: The impact of
redistribution procedures on pro-social behaviour. Economic Inquiry, 52(3). 1027-1039.
Salamon, L. M., & Toepler, S. (2015). Government-nonprofit cooperation: Anomaly or necessity?
International Society for Third-Sector Research, 26, 2155-2177.
Schervish, P. G., & Havens, J. J. Explaining the curve in the U-shaped curve. 6(2), 202-225.
Singer, P. (1994). Ethics. Oxford University Press.
Stone, A. (2007). An introduction to feminist philosophy. Malden, Ma, The United States of America:
Polity Press.

Driver, J. The History of Utilitarianism. (2009) The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Edward
N. Zalta (ed.), Retrieved from
https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2014/entries/utilitarianism-history/
Themudo, N. S. (2009), Gender and the Nonprofit Sector. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly,
38(4), 663-683.
Tong, R., & Williams, N. (2016) Feminist Ethics. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Edward
N. Zalta (ed.) Retrieved from
https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2016/entries/feminism-ethics/
Turcotte, M. (2012). Charitable giving by Canadians. Statistics Canada Catalogue: Canadian Social
Trends. 11-008, 1-21.
United States Department of Labour. (2017) Data and Statistics. Retreived from the United
States Department of Labour Website:
https://www.dol.gov/wb/stats/stats_data.htm
Wojciech Sokolowski, S. (2012). Effects of Government Support of Nonprofit Institutions on
Aggregate Private Philanthropy. Evidence from 40 Countries. 24, 359-381.
Yetman, M. H., & Yetman, R. J. (2013). How Does the Incentive Effect of the Charitable Deduction
Vary across Charities?. Accounting Review, 88(3), 1069-1094. doi:10.2308/accr-50370

49

Young, L., Chakroff, A., & Tom, J. (2012), Doing good leads to more good: The reinforcing power of
a moral self-concept. Springer Science + Business Media, 3, 325-334.

50