It would be great if we could somehow turn the growth in discretionary income made possible by these economic policies into greater giving to public serving institutions (libraries, parks, etc) and other charitable contributions.
COVID's impacts have not been proportional across the socio-economic spectrum, nor has the benefit of the economic stimulus.
Very true. A family of 5 with 3 toddlers making $50k/yr got $19,300 in stimulus and expanded child tax credit, whereas that same family would have gotten considerably less if they had a $200k/yr income. It would seem that the benefit of the economic stimulus was rather intentionally concentrated at the bottom and middle of the income curve, obviating the need for private charitable contributions. Let's also not forget that those in the top 20% already pay nearly 80% of the taxes, kinda seems like they're already doing more than their share.
A family of 5 making $50k per year is one lost job away from poverty in much of the US, which was much more likely during the pandemic without assistance. They remain economically vulnerable, probably chronically. A family of the same side making $200k per year is not on the border of poverty anywhere in the US.
Meanwhile, the public facilities used by both families such as parks were underfunded with the loss of tax revenue during the pandemic (and often before). Charitable giving is an opportunity to improve them without raising taxes. Without those inclusive civic institutions, those with means can go to private or for profit recreation and cultural options. Those who don't have nothing.
It is disheartening to hear that emergency public assistance would be used as a rationale to "obviate the need charitable contributions".
COVID's impacts have not been proportional across the socio-economic spectrum, nor has the benefit of the economic stimulus.