One thing I missed in the "Mitt Romney never pays less than 13% in taxes" story is his explanation that if you add in his charitable donations, he's paid north of 20% a year. I have no problem with the federal government's decision to encourage charitable giving by offering people tax deductions. But Romney's argument here is ridiculous and, taken to the extreme, dangerous.

Taxes and charitable donations are not the same.

First, taxes are an obligation. You can reduce or skip your charitable giving during a hard year. Not so with taxes. That's pretty simple.

A more fundamental difference, I think, is that taxes are, to the extent possible, impartially spent for society's benefit. We all get some miniscule say in how the money is ultimately apportioned. We can organize against politicians whose priorities don't match our own. We can evaluate how well government agencies assess and deal with problems. Because we're all in it together, we can debate amongst ourselves.

There are some great charities out there and, of course, some terrible ones. And we will probably not all agree on which are good and which are bad. Romney gives to his church. I've given to theater companies. Some of my friends give to our old high school. Whether your priority is PBS and Public Radio or AIDs research in Africa, you have options.

And that's just the thing -- it's not a tax because it's about your priorities, in isolation. I tend to be sympathetic to non profit arts organizations just because so many people think that focusing charity there is frivolous, in light of other problems that we face. So be it. That's my bias.

But, when we're talking about me we're not talking about much. $500? A thousand? Mitt Romney's in a different world. Bill Gates and Warren Buffett are in other worlds all together. When you get into really big money donations, the rules change a bit.

I give a theater company $500 and they use it to buy the lighting equipment from the show they're producing. I give a theater company $1 million and I'm on the board and, oh, by the way, I'd really like to see some Albee this season.

The bigger a donor you are, the more influence and control you have. Charitable giving becomes an expression of personal will and since charities and non-profits do a lot of things in society, they can actually be a mechanism by which a very rich person can help guide society in the direction that they want it to go. There is, in the end, an element of power involved. Being a big donor gives your rights and privileges and influence that you don't get by being a big taxpayer.

And, of course, there's the legacy element. The federal government doesn't name its buildings after the biggest or most generous taxpayers. But if you buy a new wing for the hospital or the museum, they'll name it after you, no problem.