> giving away to charity is the exact opposite of personal consumption, since a person is helping society, not themselves, in ways they find most meaningful.
A charitable foundation can be just about anything. Many wealthy people have their own that almost entirely further their own interests (e.g. an "art museum" next door to them, open only by appointment with them). Or a political advocacy group can be structured as a charity. Or something indistinguishable from an ordinary business (e.g. IKEA). It's very possible for charities to act against the interests of society at large.
If you really want your money to help society, tax is the best way for it to do so. I can maybe see an argument for a narrow class of charities being tax-exempt, but not charitable donations in general under our current definitions.
A charitable foundation can be just about anything. Many wealthy people have their own that almost entirely further their own interests (e.g. an "art museum" next door to them, open only by appointment with them). Or a political advocacy group can be structured as a charity. Or something indistinguishable from an ordinary business (e.g. IKEA). It's very possible for charities to act against the interests of society at large.
If you really want your money to help society, tax is the best way for it to do so. I can maybe see an argument for a narrow class of charities being tax-exempt, but not charitable donations in general under our current definitions.