Besides, I don't see how a $10k a year tax credit for next five years would be an appealing incentive considering the 'cost' of doing the same is being cut open and having your kidney taken (much more invasive than a blood donation), if your other kidney fails you are screwed.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

And yet there are already people who donate their kidneys even without any incentive at all. Are you suggesting that with this incentive, fewer people will donate?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

Maybe, it certainly reduces the altruism motive. People would see kidney donations as a transactional thing.

I said it before, I'm not against it in a more just world. In the USSR, there were medals given for various good deeds and these medals carried benefits such as better housing, allowance etc.

I could see something like this for kidneys happening in a more equal world where people were awarded a medal for kidney donations (good for social standing, seperates it from purely being transactional) with the medal benefits like more vacation days, better housing or a bonus on your existing salary.

Keep in mind in this world, everyone has a home for free and all the basic needs are met by the state already.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago

I suspect it will still feel altruistic; I think there's not much difference between tax credits and a medal. I find it improbable that the altruistic motivation would fall off in some specific non-linear way such that the overall motivation would be lower. At least, you must admit that this bears trying. Even if there's a 50% chance you're right, there's still a 50% chance this solution will significantly help.