Even under ideal circumstances, the priority of a government is to serve the needs of its citizens. Sometimes, these happen to align with global needs, and sometimes not.

In order to improve global health or address other issues that impact countries beyond where you live, the government (even an idealized version without waste, corruption, or political games) might not be the most effective way to accomplish this.

Right. But taking the combined $140 billion net worth of Bill and Melinda, about 30% (or whatever 'fair' rate you want to assume) shouldn't have been theirs to give away. Let them spend the other part however they want.

What I find kind of interesting is that Bill Gates and Warren Buffet argue that they should be taxed more, but they don't do anything to further that goal aside from media soundbites and headlines. They could fund an incredible war chest for a lobbying apparatus who's sole purpose would be to create a more fair tax system. But no such thing happens.

Some government programs are good, but if it went to the US government then Trump could cancel them. (Unless the courts stop it.)

It seems fortunate that some charitable funds isn't subject to that risk. There are other risks, but they seem lower.

In an imperfect world, government funding alone seems insufficiency diversified. That's too much power in one place.

Charitable funds fall victim to the same fundamental issue, leadership is more interested in benefiting themselves than putting the money towards the aims of the charity. In general I donate to places local to me. I'd much rather see a bench at a local park than hold on to some hope that my money does something meaningful to a large international charity organization.

I think what it comes down to is that there's no general rule. There are a lot of organizations you could give money to and it all depends on what it is.

> You lowering your tax rate and giving that money to charity isn't magicking more money into the world, it is just a different allocation.

This is only ever true if you assume that government tax spending is 100% efficient, with nary a fraction of a cent being wasted. I don't think that's a safe assumption.

No. The assumption is that charity and government have roughly equivalent efficiency. Both government and charities have (wildly varying) overhead and government agencies may enjoy economies of scale that charities do not. Yet another area of the world that contains a surprising amount of detail.