Would you support a charity law?

[Machjo]

Let's suppose that the government were banned from imposing taxes on income and wealth, and would be allowed to get revenue from natural resources and fines only. Beyond that the government would reserve the right to require us to give a certain amount of our income and non-essential wealth to a charity, but the individual contributor would reserve the right to decide to which charity he'll give that money.

Would you support such a law?

 

[Machjo]

I think a few good things about such a policy would be:

1. Government could still control the amount of money going into the economy by lowering or increasing the amount of wealth we must give to charity to ensure a stable economy along Keynesian lines.

2. The fact that we would choose where the money goes would ensure that it couldn't be bought so easily by lobby groups, and would more likely go to grassroots needs rather than further enriching the rich. It would also ensure that grassroots organizations could react more quickly to changes than the fat buraucracy of government.

Of course if a person fails to fulfil this obligation, then the government could fine him the amount not paid and take the money that way.

 

[JLM]

Let's suppose that the government were banned from imposing taxes on income and wealth, and would be allowed to get revenue from natural resources and fines only. Beyond that the government would reserve the right to require us to give a certain amount of our income and non-essential wealth to a charity, but the individual contributor would reserve the right to decide to which charity he'll give that money.

Would you support such a law?

VEry doubtful as it's too hard to foresee what kind of a "can of worms" you would be getting opened up. I could see people being fined for the most frivilous infractions and some rich people are notorious for weaseling out of paying their fair share.

 

[Machjo]

How complicated could it be?

To take an example. Let's suppose the govenrment decides on 10% of your income (I'm not saying this is the amount I'd support, but just a hypothetical example). So you give 10% of your income to a charity, keep the receipt, and come tas time you mail the receipt to the government. Done.

If you didn't do it, then you give 10% of your income to the government. And if you don't do that, then the govenremnt takes it from you and fines you a fair service charge for its troubles.

Besides, we have this to some degree already when we can claim part of our charitable contributions on our taxes. This would be no different except taken further.

What would be the issue here?

Government could still pass laws placing requirements or restrictions on institutions. So it could still control how that money is spent indirectly. But by ensuring that the money is not actually in government hands, it provides certain checks and balances (i.e. the governemtn could say how the money is to be spent, but the governemnt doesn't get to hold th emoney in its hands).

For instance, the government could require all schools, public or private, to meet certain criteria. This would be a classic example of how it could still direct spending. But of course the school itself would do the spending to meet the criteria, and this would just add to checks and balances. Charities would thus have to compete to ensure the money is used as efficiently as possible.

 

[L Gilbert]

Let's suppose that the government were banned from imposing taxes on income and wealth, and would be allowed to get revenue from natural resources and fines only. Beyond that the government would reserve the right to require us to give a certain amount of our income and non-essential wealth to a charity, but the individual contributor would reserve the right to decide to which charity he'll give that money.

Would you support such a law?

Wait!! Is this policy or law? There's a difference.
Anyway, no, I wouldn't. There would soon be no natural resources unless you would consider charities to be natural resources in which case there'd be zillions of them.

 

[Machjo]

Sorry, a law.

Why would there no longer be any natural resources? The govenrment would still reserve the right to decide on the price at which it would sell its natural resources. So it could in fact reduce resource consumption owing to the cost increase, and this would help to protect the environment. This would also mean that government could focus on the more basic needs of government such as police, courts, military, etc., while helping the poor and other such responsibilities would be more the responsibility of charities.

What? You don't want more of a say in how your money is spent?

 

[Machjo]

I really don't get the opposition. Though I recognize the importance for every citizen, including myself, to contribute to the well-being of society, I don't understand why I should not be allowed to decide where this money goes?

Do you not trust yourselves to give the money to the right charity that will use your money wisely? You trust our government more?

 

[L Gilbert]

Lemme see, country run by charity. Charity turns into big business.
No thanks.

 

[Machjo]

Sorry, but I don't understand the logic. In such a scenario, charities won't be going to the govenrment for bailouts because the govenrment would have limited funds itself. So where would the charities get their money from? You and me.

As it stands now, it's the govnerment giving your money out to the squeeky wheel whether or not it deserves it. But if you get to choose where your money goes, you can ensure that it goes to a good cause, be it medical research, education, health care, UNICEF, etc. etc. etc. according to what you think will make our world a better place, and not what some CEOs, union leaders and politicians think.

 

[Machjo]

I'm sorry, but I really can't understand why you'd oppose having more say in how your charitable money is spent.

 

[Risus]

Sounds like a rediculuous idea.

 

[Machjo]

Sounds like a rediculuous idea.

Why? Because it's not been done before?

 

[L Gilbert]

Most companies don't ask the gov't for handouts. When the group of charities becomes bigger than the gov't it will BE the gov't. As big as our gov't is now it is run by the money it gets mostly from corporations, companies, and the rich and charity will become big business.
It'd be nice if I could direct exactly where each dollar of my taxes is spent but it's certainly not practical. Once charities become big business they'd need more admionistration, more this, more that, etc. And seeing as they pay no taxes whereas businesses do, the gov't would go broke.
Basically what you are saying is that charities should replace business. Who is to say that they would spend their money (that they get from us and other businesses) on what we think they should?

 

[tracy]

It's not a charitable donation if the government makes you give. I honestly just don't see any real benefit to that.

 

[JLM]

KIBOSH IT- IT WON'T WORK- I 've found in life that most of the people who want money out of you eventually get it anyway and if not you are probably wasting more money and shoe leather avoiding them.

 

[L Gilbert]

.... and replacing one form of gov't with another.

 

[Machjo]

Most companies don't ask the gov't for handouts. When the group of charities becomes bigger than the gov't it will BE the gov't. As big as our gov't is now it is run by the money it gets mostly from corporations, companies, and the rich and charity will become big business.
It'd be nice if I could direct exactly where each dollar of my taxes is spent but it's certainly not practical. Once charities become big business they'd need more admionistration, more this, more that, etc. And seeing as they pay no taxes whereas businesses do, the gov't would go broke.
Basically what you are saying is that charities should replace business. Who is to say that they would spend their money (that they get from us and other businesses) on what we think they should?

Teh you disagree with charity X, you give to charity Y. That would keep them on their toes. And why would we tax a charity when it's not-for-profit?

And how could charities replace business when their objectives are quite different?

 

[Machjo]

It's not a charitable donation if the government makes you give. I honestly just don't see any real benefit to that.

I agree. Then le'ts look at it another way. At the moment we can already declare a certain portion of our charitable donations on our taxes. What if the government just increased the declarable amount to all of it? Would you be in favour of that. It would be the same as now, but more.

Honestly, I'd rather the government not require me to give it so that I can choose to give it. But if the govenrment insists on putting money into the economy to jump-start it, then let us decide where that money will go.

How did I come up with this idea?

Well, for one thing, we can already declare a portion of our charitable donations on taxes already, so I figured why set a limit? Same as now, but just make all of it declarable.

Another thing was a case in the UK where some Quaker peace activists refused to pay that portion of their taxes that went to the military. I believe they lost the case, but it gave me the idea that if you could choose where the money goes, then you also have more control over how that money is used to ends you morally agree with.

 

[Machjo]

KIBOSH IT- IT WON'T WORK- I 've found in life that most of the people who want money out of you eventually get it anyway and if not you are probably wasting more money and shoe leather avoiding them.

Perhaps true. But if so, then what would be the difference between this idea and the govenrmetn deciding?

 

[Machjo]

.... and replacing one form of gov't with another.

How is it the same. Now, if the govenrment chooses to give the money to this or that cause, I have no say in it. Under the alternative scenario, I could choose where that money goes myself. Unlike govenrment, no charity could force you to give money to it. You get to choose your charity, a charity you trust more than Harper, let's say.