Charitable thoughts

Re “Is Harvard really a charity?” Opinion, Oct. 1

Robert B. Reich overlooks two important points in his analysis of the areas to which wealthy people direct their charitable donations.

First, what he describes as “cultural palaces” are venues enjoyed by thousands for whom a visit to Disney Hall, the Dorothy Chandler Pavilion or an art exhibition offers a welcome respite from the cares of our troubled world. Sure, there will be a sprinkling of the wealthy in any audience, and we thank them for their contributions. But the vast majority will be people who manage their personal funds in such a way as to enable them to enjoy music or other art of their choice.

Second, the federal government has rarely fulfilled its duty to preserve our cultural heritage and encourage new artistic ventures. A considerable increase in funding for the National Endowment for the Arts is essential. With more dollars in its coffers, that body would be able to distribute its funds as it feels appropriate and, hopefully, regardless of political considerations. The need for donations to support the arts would be reduced, and Reich’s proposal to offer tempting tax breaks to donors who contribute at any level to charities benefiting the really needy would then, I’m sure, receive a high degree of approval.

John B. Welch

North Hollywood

--

It’s too bad that Reich believes that charitable contributions to arts and education are “investments in the lifestyles the wealthy already enjoy.” If he visited the websites of many of the institutions he holds up as “art palaces,” he would learn how much these institutions invest in educational programs in the local public school system, free ticket days, programming in underserved communities, programs for educators, scholarships, discovery guides and the development of many other resources. While we in the arts may not think of ourselves as “charities,” vital financial support from our donors results in art that inspires, nurtures and educates across the socioeconomic spectrum.

Terry LeMoncheck

Executive director

Pasadena Arts Council

--

Allowing only a 50% tax deduction for donations to institutions that do not serve the poor might mean that those institutions would receive less. I attended a private university, which needs private support. If Reich’s point is to increase donations to legitimate charities, then more incentive is needed.

If a person gives, say, $10,000 to a university, give him the full deduction if he also gives 15% of that to a charity that serves the poor. If not, then he gets only 50% as a tax write-off. The 15% kicks in at a minimum amount so small givers can still afford to donate without increasing their total amount. If the public responds, perhaps the percentage could be raised in a few years. The result would be increased donations for charities that need the support.

Dave Tuttle

Mission Viejo