Who would spend your tax money more wisely in your opinion?
- Thread starter Machjo
- Start date
Honestly, I'd rather give my money directly to the school, hospital or other organization of my choice and just plain bypass government buraucracy. besides, by the time that money works its way through the buraucracy anyway, only about half of if actually makes it to the grassroots anyway. So we might as well keep it at the grassroots through direct contribtions. The United Way is not the most efficient of charities, granted, and so I wouldn't give to them. Yet, I'd stillsay the United Way is probably more efficient than the government anyway. UNICEF isn't the most efficient either, but again, no worse than the government. Add to that that since charities are not normally unionized, they'd likely find themselves able to get a bigger bang for the buck service-wise and, since they wold not be as confined as the public service to all kinds of rules and regulations, they could be more open to esperimentation with new inovative, effective, efficient and imaginative ways to help the needy than bogged-down buraucracy can. And if we don't like what a particular charity does, then we can just as easily vote with our feet and give to another charity.
Overall, I belive that I'm more aware of where my tax dollars could best be put to good use in my community than a govrnment far away in its ivory tower.
Overall, I belive that I'm more aware of where my tax dollars could best be put to good use in my community than a govrnment far away in its ivory tower.
Who would spend your tax money more wisely in your opinion?
My DAD. There would never be a deficit
According to a former MLA that I know about 2/3 of program spending is eaten up in the bureaucracy. So if a million dollars was earmarked for a project only about 330G would actually make it to the job. The rest goes to the high paid welfare bums.
Exactly. Now imagine how much money could be saved if you yourself as a taxpayer could just go up to your local school, hospital, or any other charity, cut a cheque and give it to them directly. They give you a tax receipt, and bingo. No more buraucracy, or at least a lot less. To take an example, which is more efficient between:
a) You give a dollar to your local hospital. Maybe, what, 10 cents goes to hospital administration and the rest goes to helping the patient. or
b) You give a dollar to the government. It then spends 1 cent debating what to do with your money, another cent fighting over what it should be spent on precicely, another few cents on conducting a study to settle the dispute, and just then we go into an election. After the election, we spend a few more cents fighting over it again, etc. ntil finally patients and patience are dropping dead, And only then does the government finally release the 60 cents that's left to give it to the hospital. And then the hospital might still need a few cents from that for its own administration.
So yes, you're right. If we could earmark our own money, more of it would get to the grassroots. Unless of course someone can make a recommendation on how to expedite these funds without them getting cought up in all this buraucratic web? I'm always open to new ideas if I've missed something. But for now, I'd have to say that tax-deductions on charitable donations would be the way to go.
I remember readig an article recently too, saying how money for the stimulus will likely flow slowly owing to government restrictions on buraucracy. To fight corruption, the government has introduced all kinds of protocal, rules and regulations for the buraucracy. But now that we'll be spending alot more money than before, the concern is that buraucrats, out of fear of losing their jobs, getting accused of corruption, charges, etc., will be excessively cautious in how they spend, always getting everything double checked, etc. to cover their rears. Now I'm not blaming the buraucrats here. If I were a buraucrat facing all these new rules and regulations, I'd be wfully cautious too. But this just goes to show how inefficient government can be. With charities, if we find out they're not up to snuff, we cut their funding, simple as that, but as long as they're performing well, we keep giving to them without having so many rules and regulations like in government buraucracy, and so they can function more quickly to needs. We can't do that so esily with govenrment.