'MIRI' works in the search field when electing a charity to get 0.5% of your https://smile.amazon.com purchases.

New to LessWrong?

New Comment
15 comments, sorted by Click to highlight new comments since: Today at 9:21 PM

SmileAlways for Chrome and Smile Redirect for Firefox make the use of AmazonSmile automatic.

Just setting up a charity as an Amazon affiliate will get it around 5% of purchases made through the affiliate link (see here)

And charity credit cards are, of course, a popular idea.

Apparently Amazon shut down use of the affiliate program for charities and are now pushing AmazonSmile.

Did it?

A brief look at the requirements and the operating agreement shows no restrictions on charities.

Are there browser plugins to make all purchases as though they are bought through the affiliate link?

I don't know but I am sure Google will tell you.

Can I use this for my AWS bill?

I recall there being some kind of credit card that automatically rounded the price of your purchases up and donated the difference to a charity of your choice. Does that ring a bell for anyone?

Credit card companies seem to have enough money to pay airplane company something for frequent flyer miles. There are also cashback programs.

I think the credit card company gets something like 3% of the money you pay for transactions. Maybe it would be possible to have a credit card that pays automatically 1 or 2 percent of the purchase price to a charity.

It might be very high leverage for someone in the effective altruism movement to facilitate the creation of such a credit card. The card might be default move the money to GiveWell recommended charities.

Credit card companies don't have the best PR and I think there a good chance that they would welcome a project like that.

[-][anonymous]10y00

You can already get credit cards that donate some fraction of the money to charity. I expect the marginal PR gain from one of those charities being GiveWell-recommended would be pretty small.

The actual leverage of creating such a credit card would of course depend on uptake, and for an individual effective altruist, it would likely be better to find a credit card with a good cashback rate and donate the cashback, rather than using a charity credit card with a probably mediocre or bad rate.

I expect the marginal PR gain from one of those charities being GiveWell-recommended would be pretty small.

Depends how much EA people are going to talk about it. I also think the whole is a good story for a journalist to tell.

The actual leverage of creating such a credit card would of course depend on uptake, and for an individual effective altruist, it would likely be better to find a credit card with a good cashback rate and donate the cashback, rather than using a charity credit card with a probably mediocre or bad rate.

If one of the EA organisations would go to Visa, I don't see any reason why they shouldn't be able to negotiate at least as much money as a good cashback card. From the perspective of Visa, giving money to charity is tax deductable. That might make it possible to get more money than the best cashback card.

[-][anonymous]10y20

If one of the EA organisations would go to Visa, I don't see any reason why they shouldn't be able to negotiate at least as much money as a good cashback card.

So why haven't other charities which have got cashback cards succeeded in doing this?

Are you thinking of SwipeGood (http://swipegood.com/)? I don't know of any credit cards that do that, but several banks have a "save the change" option that rounds up purchases and puts the extra pennies into a nominated savings account. As far as I understand it (the "FAQ" link just sends me back to their homepage), SwipeGood links into those systems to donate the money to charities instead, minus a 5% commission.

Maybe. Googling the obvious key words lead me to their site but clicking on "FAQ" and "Charities" just sends me back to the main page.

In any case, this is something that can help increase donations. Or it might have a negative effect because people tend to think that they are already donating "enough", so they do not need to do anything more.