Would you support a charity law?

[L Gilbert]

Sure they are different but they still require money. The only essential difference being that charities don't pay to keep things running in the country and businesses do. If you don't think charities compete for money, I have news for you. If you don't think charities have administration structures and all moneys go towards doing whatever they do, I have news for you.
Charities will grow, there will be more charities competing for money. Besides that, who are going to staff all these charities? The usual volunteers? What are they going to live on? Do we need to turn volunteers into donatees or do we pay them?

 

[JLM]

"Perhaps true. But if so, then what would be the difference between this idea and the govenrmetn deciding? "- One important one, the current one is already in place and yours requires throwing out all the old forms and regulations and drawing up new ones at a cost. ARe you prepared to write a book with about 100,000 pages, covering every possible situation- like one example how does your plan deal with foreign income?

 

[Machjo]

Sure they are different but they still require money. The only essential difference being that charities don't pay to keep things running in the country and businesses do. If you don't think charities compete for money, I have news for you. If you don't think charities have administration structures and all moneys go towards doing whatever they do, I have news for you.
Charities will grow, there will be more charities competing for money. Besides that, who are going to staff all these charities? The usual volunteers? What are they going to live on? Do we need to turn volunteers into donatees or do we pay them?

Of course charities need administrative structures. That's common sence. As for making wealth, neither charity nor governemtn do that. That's always been the role of business. And no one here is talking about replacing businesses.

What we're talking about here is deciding who will help the poor, bovernment or charities? As for wealth creation, it's clear that that role remains in the hads of business either way.

Now what you might not know is that some charities have paid staff already, so what would be the fundamental change there? Charities compete for money already, so again no difference there.

As for what the charity does with the money, here's the fundamental difference:

If I'm involved in a charity already, then I can see with my own eyes how the money is used. If I'm a member myself, I can vote to choose the leadership of the organization. As amember, I can see the accounting books as I wish. Do I have that much control over how my money is used when the government takes it?

No!

In this respect, it would be much more democratic.

To take an example:

If we had this kind of system, you could choose to give your money to a charity you trust. you could even join the charity. if they refuse you membership, you take your money elsewhere. As a member, you get to vote for the leadership and could insists on regular monthly meetings for the local community to exchange ideas. You yourself could be voted into the leadership of the organization. As a member, you'd have a right to see the accounts on a regular basis, let's say once a month, or whatever. With such close grassroots scrutiny of the finances of the organization, corruption is difficult.

Have you ever been involved in any kind of charity? I have, and can say that at least some of them are quite grassroots. Since you would get to choose your charity, you could choose the one you know.

This way, corruption is difficult, unlike in government.

 

[Machjo]

And if a charity does get away with corruption, then its contributors deserve what they get for not keeping an eye on it.

More responsible contributors would be much more cautious and give the charities a run for their money.

 

[tracy]

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.

I just think it's too finicky. I don't know why people feel they should have the right to decide how their taxes are spent exactly. You are entitled to vote for the people who decide that. I could also see a lot of the "cute" charities doing well and the less cute charities suffering. Everyone wants to give money to save cute little baby seals or puppies. Fewer people are eager to open their wallets up for the 55 year old schizophrenic who can't live in society without assistance.

 

[Machjo]

"Perhaps true. But if so, then what would be the difference between this idea and the govenrmetn deciding? "- One important one, the current one is already in place and yours requires throwing out all the old forms and regulations and drawing up new ones at a cost. ARe you prepared to write a book with about 100,000 pages, covering every possible situation- like one example how does your plan deal with foreign income?

Of course govenment would still have guaranteed income from taxes on natural resources, and it would still exercise the right to legislate. Charities would have money, but no legislative powers.


As for various govenrment programmes, yes, they'd have to be dismantled gradually over time, but this could be a direction worth aimng for. It could perhaps be introduced incrementally over a 70-year period, with more and more of our charitable contributions being income-tax deductible.

It wouln'd have to change overnight.

 

[Adriatik]

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?

Well, you have to remember one thing. If the government cannot tax the citizens, they cannot fund public programs like health care and education.

If Canadians are able to keep their entire salary in their pocket, they will still have no choice to pay some money, if not more than income taxes accounts for, for private health care and education.

Unfortunately, if the government can only get revenue from natural resources and fines only, say goodbye to public health care and education...

If this so called charity law were in place, Canadians wouldn't even have money left over to give to charity...

This is why I would not support this idea..

 

[Machjo]

I just think it's too finicky. I don't know why people feel they should have the right to decide how their taxes are spent exactly. You are entitled to vote for the people who decide that. I could also see a lot of the "cute" charities doing well and the less cute charities suffering. Everyone wants to give money to save cute little baby seals or puppies. Fewer people are eager to open their wallets up for the 55 year old schizophrenic who can't live in society without assistance.

You do have a point there. But what 's the difference between that and the governemtn spending 10 million dollars on a three-striped painting because the artist is quasi-famous?

So yes, you do have a point, but in the end the result appears to be the same either way...

No, I'm wrong. While it would be wiser to give to medicine than baby seals, it's still wiser to help baby seals than a three-striped painting. So even the 'cute' charities still beat government funding on three-striped paintings!

Another possibility could be to prohibit any political organization from being included on the list. This would include political parties as well as special interest groups. That could be one solution.

 

[Machjo]

Well, you have to remember one thing. If the government cannot tax the citizens, they cannot fund public programs like health care and education.

If Canadians are able to keep their entire salary in their pocket, they will still have no choice to pay some money, if not more than income taxes accounts for, for private health care and education.

Unfortunately, if the government can only get revenue from natural resources and fines only, say goodbye to public health care and education...

If this so called charity law were in place, Canadians wouldn't even have money left over to give to charity...

This is why I would not support this idea..

Actually, schools and hospitals would probably end up with more money. I suspect people would be more willing to give to schools and hospitals than towards buying 10-million-dollar three-striped paintings and 4-billion-dollar union jobs. Though I could be wrong. But my guess is that if any charity spent 10 million dollars on a three-striped painting, people would switch to another charity pronto. Same if a charity decided to give money to a failing business. My guess is most charities would rather focus on food, shelter, education, job training, medical care, etc. The basics, no frills no gimmicks like the idiocy we get from the government..

 

[Machjo]

Interesting. Someone else voted yes. I'd be curious to know who and his reasoning behind it.

 

[Machjo]

Another advantage I would see with this kind of law is that it would create a more fair balance between managers and unions. In the current system with government employees, if they go on strike and request unreasonable sages, then there's little we can do; they've got us by the balls (according to one survey I'd read they're already getting 15% higher wages than people doing the same job in the private sector).

With the system proposed here, if a charity gives unreasonable salaries to its unionized workers, you could just switch to another charity. So the union has to tread more carefully. Inversely, if salaries are too low, the charity won't be able to hire the qualified staff it needs, so it woudl balance itself out more equally.

 

[Risus]

Why? Because it's not been done before?

No, because its stupid....

 

[Machjo]

No, because its stupid....

Why?

Have you not learnt to communicate? These one-liners say nothing of why?

 

[eh1eh]

I don't think hundreds of dollars in fines per week instead of income tax would be any different. That is what would happen. The government would maximize their revenue by making more crap illegal and fining people for it.

I have to say this is ridiculous. Look at the charities we have now, Wall Street, Auto Makers.

 

[Machjo]

I don't think hundreds of dollars in fines per week instead of income tax would be any different. That is what would happen. The government would maximize their revenue by making more crap illegal and fining people for it.

I have to say this is ridiculous. Look at the charities we have now, Wall Street, Auto Makers.

Those are charities?

Oh my, I nver thought I'd have to explain what a charity was!

What I had in mind in terms of charities would be things like UNICEF, a local school or hospital, poor hostel, soup kitchen, Salvation Army, United Way, etc. etc. etc.

You consider Wall Street and auto companies charities?

 

[mit]

At the turn of the last century if you were down on your luck you relied on the kindness of neighbours or strangers. Many people belonged to mutual beneficial societies (Odd Fellows, Masons, Knight of Columbus, Forresters etc.) You paid your dues and if you became sick there was a benefit paid - if you died another benefit was paid and ongoing support for your spouse (It was like an insurance company). Later on service clubs were formed that looked after the community - If a community needed a park or an arena or a special need arose these clubs would fundraise in the community - The governments saw these things as a good way to get votes and started providing the same things but the dues you paid were in taxes - Volunteers were not needed anymore as the government wanted these projects as make work projects so the labour was done by those who couldn't find a job - administered by a political hack who got his job by who he knew - not what he knew. Then the governments started to look at the money people freely gave to charities in 50/50 draws - Break open tickets, Bingos and casino nights - They decided that a review of lotteries and gaming needed to be done and basically shut out local service clubs and sports organizations from this funding - asking them instead to request funds from the government lottery corporation. Charities then became professional fundraisers and hired staff - canvassers - estate managers - etc. and became a business - As long as they spend atleast 20% on programs they can keep their tax. And unlike political parties - they can receive as much money as they want from whoever wants to give it to them. 80% of MADD's fundraising efforts goes back to fundraising efforts - Many people do not know that MADD charges your school board for one of their programs - The facilitator in many cases is also paid. In the US MADD's largest sponsor happens to make the Driver Interlock system you must now install in your car if you get pinched for DUI.
Many of those Starving Childrens Charities spend a huge portion of their donations on programs - TV time is not free - nor are cameramen - glossy brochures etc.
That chairman of the local Unitied Way may get a paycheque that makes an autoworker cheque look like minimum wage.

Having said this - yes we do need to support charity at home - tell the government to give up on lotteries and slots - let the local charities raise money - stop giving us our money back (minus the adminstration charge) If the community wants a new arena - make them raise all or atleast half the funds. Force people back to looking after their neighbours rather than our governments the Super Nannies!

 

[Machjo]

So mit, does that mean you like the idea presented in this thread or not? Or somewhere in between?

Honestly, I'd rather be free to choose, but if I must be legislated to give, then I'd still rather have a say as to who gets it at least. So based on that, I take it you like the idea?

 

[Walter]

The only fair tax is a consumption tax.

 

[Machjo]

The only fair tax is a consumption tax.

Wouldn't a tax on natural resources be a consumtion tax by definition?

As for a tax on income and wealth, I'd rather not have it and choose to give to charity as I see fit, not as the government sees fit. But looking at political reality, I doubt we'd get away with that. So then I proposed that if we can't escape a tax on wealth and income, then let's at least have a say as to where it goes to.

 

[Zzarchov]

Who decides whats a charity?

Is a group that sends kids to summer camp a charity? What if its only white kids and they learn why white kids are better? Or only Muslim kids and they learn why Muslims must kill the infidel.

So who is funding the police charity? Are the Police and Firemen Charity really going to go to all places equally?

Your tax dollars are not "charity" you do not mandatorily devote a portion of your income to "charity".


Even Healthcare isn't a charity, it makes more money for the economy than it loses, sick workers cost productivity.

Though if we do, I'll open up my charity where we buy vacations for IT specialists who donate money to charities that buy vacations for IT specialists.