The Dolphins Make Me Cry.com - Forums

So I got approached by a group from nature.org outside of publix yesterday asking me to setup a recurring donation to their cause. I handed them a 10 dollar bill and they told me they couldn't accept cash and wouldn't take a one time debit and could only accept a recurring monthly contribution that i could cancel at any time. So they ended up with 0.  if you're a charity soliciting donations, you should probably make it as easy as possible for people to give you money, and not toss hurdles in the way. I offered 2 separate types of donation and was declined.

So that got me to thinking about charities in general and their role in society. I think overall charities in general are universally detrimental to society. They exist because people have identified a need and instead of mobilizing existing structures to meet this need as a society and leveraging economies of scale, we have a system where resources are often times used in an inefficient manner on niche causes with small impacts. They also have a ton of ramifications that people often times don't realize.

First off, charities are often times tax exempt. so income they make is not taxed, and while plenty of charities are non-profit, that doesn't mean that their executives aren't paid tremendous amounts of money and that waste exists at all levels. Furthermore, these types of non-profits are often used as vehicles to reduce the tax burdens of the people that contribute. So someone for example like Trump, can funnel money to the trump foundations, thereby reducing his tax burden and then use the trump foundation money to allow him to financially contribute to areas that give him an advantage in making more money.  Another example would be the TV evangelists that boast of buying private jets for cash by running non-profit religious organizations that then shield them from taxation.

The other thing charities do is that they divert resources from areas that have wide ranging impact to narrow ranging outcomes. Would you consider PETA's mission of militant veganism more important to the society at large than health care for children or feeding the hungry? When people donate to PETA and then deduct that from their taxes, that's exactly the choice they are making. They are saying that they know better than society at large what issues are more important.

I would solve this issue by doing away with all tax exemptions for any charity or religious organization. And do away with any tax deductions from any charity donations. It's fine if a charity wants to operate and cover whatever niche cause they feel strongly about but they don't get to dictate to the majority what the relative importance of their cause is. This should be prioritized by the people through their representatives. If we as a society decide we want to fight cancer or cure alzheimers, we should devote funds towards that (and we do) and if other people think they want to give extra to that cause they should .. but that doesn't absolve them from paying their taxes. We don't need the ultra-rich to setup a foundation to perform some charitable work with the sole purpose of shielding these people from taxation. Pay your taxes, if you feel strongly enough about a cause to fund it, then do it after you've contributed your share to society. Taxes are taxes, charity is charity, religion is religion .. they should not relate in any way.

Any charity that won’t take cash and insists on having my bank account information is a red flag, so that one....no.

I do generally agree the need for charities are a failure of society.  Most of what charities do, ought be handled via the government through taxes.  My high school economics teacher had a poster, “It will be a great day when schools get all the money they need and the air force has to hold a bake sale to buy a bomber.”. While I don’t think the air force should be holding bake sales.  Schools shouldn’t need to hold them to buy equipment for the science lab.  We should expand SNAP to the point that can drives are unnecessary.

However, much like I don’t agree with the tip system at restaurants believing that wages should provide for their income.  Opting out because of the flawed system is wrong. 

Unless there is a solid commitment that we will use tax dollars to end hunger in the USA, ending the tax exempt status for food banks is just evil.

I, too, think society's reliance on charity is to our ultimate detriment... especially when we attach tax savings to charity donations.

To reference current events, the idea that a person can enjoy substantial tax breaks by "donating" a million dollars to a university - which then admits their kid as a student - that is the one of the worst kinds of institutionalized bribery.  (And if you recall, the reason why Aunt Becky and others were indicted is because instead of giving millions to the university, they tried to get away with only giving hundreds of thousands directly to a university employee.)

The charity system, both in our country and abroad, is busted.  We should do away with these charity scams and start taxing people so that our democratic governments (and not the ultra-rich aristocrats) can decide how best to help the needy.

The tax laws on charities, non-profits, and deductions of donations seem remarkably similar across all Western countries that I've seen. And yet the prevalence of charities and their role in society is much more significant in the US than in other countries.

As such, I'm not convinced tax laws are the problem. It seems like part of the problem is that the need for charities is just much greater than in most other Western countries. That's a political hot potato, but without doing something to address the real need, it's probably not a good idea to make life harder for charities.

In every other industrialized nation on the planet this charity would be pointless.


https://cameronscrusaders.org/amazing-charities-that-help-with-medical-bills/

Compared to other Western countries, the US has significantly diminished healthcare guarantees as well as a diminished safety net.

I suppose you could argue that those changes could be made under our current tax structure.  But ultimately, I'd say the issue is that charities in the US fill the gap between the social spending our government will authorize, and the social spending nearly all other Western governments have implemented.

I disagree.  Charities play a vital role in our society.  Sure there are some that are scams, I won't disagree about that.  But I don't want to pay more in taxes just to have money wasted in government bureaucracy before being doled out to worthwhile causes, that's just backwards to me.  Furthermore, I never like the idea of comparing the U.S. to other western civilizations; we are greater in land area and diversity than any other western culture.  From the Northeast to the Midwest, to the South & Southwest, and the Northwest we are a variety of many different cultures and mores; and I don't want some idiots in Washington deciding for me what I think is a worthy cause.

As I see it, the primary difference between donated funds managed by a private charity and tax dollars managed by the government is that the latter is accountable to voters.  When you donate to a private charity, a large chunk of that money still has to go to paying employees and other overhead before it goes to the worthwhile cause.

I mean, just look at the salaries that the heads of many private charities receive.  Look at these megachurches and the kind of money they burn through.  I'd much rather have elected officials in charge of that money, because at least they need to win votes to stay in office.  I'd rather have some politician in DC deciding what is and isn't a worthy cause, than let some .01 percenter like Michael Dell decide which causes align with his personal belief system enough to deserve funding.

the EU is more populous than the US by about 200 million people and has 28 different countries with different languages, local customs, a wide range of ethnicity and different local laws. Plus an extensive history of killing each other that makes the US civil war look like a bar fight. As an example, every country in the EU has universal health care. That's 200 more million people with a roughly similar GDP as the US. I don't know what land area really has to do with something like that. But the EU is half the size, of the US, has 200 million more people than the US and roughly the same GDP as the us and they can make universal healthcare work in a variety of different ways. I don't want to hear about how the US can't do it cause it's too big. BS.

We are the only industrialized nation not to offer health care.  We are the only democracy that can’t figure out gun control.  Almost everyone else has figured out away to give new moms paid maternity leave.  We have a disproportionately large prison population.  A death penalty policy that is as bad as the most brutal dictatorships.  We spend more on the military than the next 8 largest speng counties. 

We don’t have intractable problems, we just choose not to solve them.

And that is the basis for which we will never agree. People should share their stuff because they want to and not because the King takes it ... I mean the government. A lot of people sacrificed everything to give us the freedom to choose to live how we want and I really don't understand the how a mind can be so warped as to think we should return back to the way things were before we were a free society.

I think its funny. Many people who attend church do not tithe regularly but those that do typically are the most generous outside the church. I find this true among people outside the church. People are either generous or they are not. In my experience if they are not generous and you take from them they will steal it from somewhere else to make up for it. Kids do this all the time in plain site when forced to share their toys but adults are more sneaky in justifying why it is ok to take from somewhere else.

We figured out gun control in 1776 and that is we have the right to keep them. Trying to change things now doesn't make it any more wrong than it was then. This country was literally founded on the right to bear arms. As you said there are many more countries that do not give that right so it should be easy enough to move to one if you are that offended by people having them.  

Are you talking about keeping guns there, or slaves? Both are antiquated practices that a civilized country should figure a way to get rid of...

No the country was not founded on the right to bear arms. It was. founded on the idea that the constitution was a living document that was going to need change over time.  To wit shortly after ratification, they made 10 changes.

1776?  probably not worth my time discussing this with someone who is so ignorant to not know the 2nd amendment does not appear in the declaration of independence.

not the king .. the people .. this is government of the people by the people .. and they don't need to share their stuff .. they keep their stuff .. if they want to be generous and donate stuff to charities then more power to them .. but that has nothing to do with the implicit and explicit social contract they have with their fellow citizens either through a choice to live in this country or by virtue of being born here. Taxation with representation isn't oppression. People have a moral obligation to pay taxes, that's how roads get built and how fires get put out.

I get the second amendment but that was only a clarifications for people like you guys. There is a lot more but I'm going to keep it simple. In the very first paragraph to the preamble to the Declaration of Independence our forefathers declared 1) that we are given rights by God and 2) one of those rights is liberty. Look up the definition of Liberty and it still means freedom. The second paragraph establishes that governments are established by men who must consent to be governed and that government can be abolished when that government becomes destructive to those same men. Nothing in there giving for the government the right to make people do things the general public does not consent to.

 

Paying taxes isn't a moral issue ... LOL. People who do not pay taxes aren't immoral they are criminals. I'm glad you brought up roads because that's infrastructure and surely falls on the government to manage. Taking more money to make sure people who don't do as much receives the same is ridiculous.

I saw a poll recently that asked two questions to college students. One was asking if all wealth should be shared with the less achievers. The answer was hugely yes. The second questions asked those same students if they should receive lesser grades so that those who failed could pass and they almost unanimously answered NO. That's the thing with social programs ... people are cool with them until they personally affect them. The bad part is unless you choose to stay at the bottom you will eventually be the one affected.

Just like I'm guessing you're ok with not having universal healthcare because you got a good job that can give you decent coverage? Man, I hope you don't lose your job and have a health issue, otherwise, you'll be begging for that universal healthcare.

How did a thread on Charity lead to gun control and universal healthcare?

This is why the second amendment was written into the Constitution.   If the government ever became destructive and tyrannical, citizens could defend themselves

Bullshit.  The second amendment didn’t didn’t prevent the tyranny of rounding up Asian Americans during WWII.  Had those citizens been better armed the result would have been bloodshed and their resistance used as an excuse for greater tyranny, not an overthrow of the tyrannical policy.

In the America of the 1890s, before federal income tax existed, every elderly person had the freedom to starve penniless in the street, or to die because they couldn't afford healthcare.  We didn't like that kind of freedom, so we created Social Security and Medicare: the two most popular government programs in the history of the republic.

We also had a time where children had the freedom not to receive a basic education, or where a person who suffered a terrible accident had the freedom to die if they couldn't afford emergency care. We didn't like those freedoms, either.

The charity model doesn't work, and never has.  You cannot fill a starving belly with Freedom, nor can you set a broken bone with it or use it to avoid hypothermia.  Instead of this slavish devotion to hypothetical "freedom" interpreted solely as "I don't want to pay taxes," let's try to create a society where enough people have food, shelter, safety, and good health so they can enjoy real, meaningful freedom.

If we're going to reference the founders, let's remember that they fought against taxation without representation, not taxation itself.

Not sure about the 2A (CF brought that up), but in this country, a discussion about the value of charity essentially has to involve healthcare.  GoFundMe is, sadly, one of the biggest charity websites.

It's up to fully grow adults to take care of and provide those things for themselves. It's not my responsibility to be a parent to fully grown adults that aren't related to me. Unless of course I choose to.

Currently, we do have taxation and representation. So what's your point? You don't like the current terms and conditions provided by our legally elected representatives?

I'm not the one arguing that taxation for services I disagree with is equivalent to living under a monarch, with no say in my self-government.  A 90% top marginal tax rate in the 1950s does not mean Dwight Eisenhower was exactly the same as King George.

government will do whatever the people want it to do. if the people want universal healthcare then the government will setup universal healthcare and it'll become a function of government .. isn't that the definition of freedom ? people have the freedom to decide how they want government to function

Anyway, I give to charity when I can afford it. For instance, I've sponsored buddies or coworkers of mine that are running the Boston Marathon for a cause, or for the event that we have here in Boston every May, called the Walk for Hunger, and have given them either a set amount, or pledge so much $ a mile. I suppose that counts. But I don't even consider people that are coming up to me on the street seeking charitable donations, unless they're wearing girlscout uniforms and selling delicious cookies.

I think anyone who would prefer to outlaw private charities in exchange for solely government-originating charitable-type benefits/grants, will find themselves in the extreme minority of voters in this country. For the last 100 or so years we've had a "mixed economy" in that way and I doubt most people would disagree with that way of proceeding. And I do think it has some advantages to it. I believe it's akin to how the legal system provides/allows both government and private attorneys as regards criminal defense.

Consider: everyone has the ability to obtain a public defender. Some choose, rather, to obtain a private defense attorney, such as myself. I charge a fee, yes, but it is a reasonable fee and - even if I consistently win, at a WAPD (wins above public defender) rate akin to Barry Bonds at the height of his career - I'm still subject to the SC Fee Dispute Resolution board if the client feels he or she has been overcharged. And I still may have to give some of the money back, even if I win. So what is the role of the private attorney? Well, clearly, the private attorney tends to be highly skilled or concentrated on a certain area of the law and have an expertise in said area, (or possibly special connections) thus allowing said attorney to produce a result likely better than the more generalized public practitioner, and further with a more direct focus. I believe it to be similar with charities, with one exception: no one gets a tax break for taking a private attorney over a public defender.  

Thus, I do agree that most charitable giving shouldn't be a basis for a tax break. In contrast though, when I was doing poor folk's taxes in Miami, (w/ the VITA program at my law school) I saw a number of people who devoted upwards of 50% of their net income to their local church which they attended. For these types of people, whether you see them as particularly devoted faithful or simple rubes, I doubt it would hurt to help them with a *nonrefundable* tax break - they're already getting a refund anyway just on the basis of their income.  

^^^ I agree only a extremely small minority of people would favor getting rid of charities.  I certainly don’t want to get rid of them.

However, I also don’t feel that as a society we should be depending on charities to provide minimum basic needs that most other democracies provide thru the government.  I don’t support changing the tax code to get rid off foodbanks.  I just want them to be better funded by the government.

I do feel we need better oversight of charities to make sure they are not fraudulent or abusing their position.  E.g. PETA and NRA are political organizations that should not get charity status, they should be treated as PACs. 

Also churches should only be tax exempt to the extent they are doing charity, not for prothutizing or political activities.

No religious institution should have tax exempt status...period. It is one of the biggest mistakes ever made by our society.

I've had health coverage every since I was a 18 and a laborer on a bridge crew. It isn't hard to find a job that offers it but you have to be willing to work somewhere that high schoolers aren't. If you live in Florida there is no shortage of construction companies looking for people. If you're talking about becoming disabled and not being able to work ... they have insurance for that too. I grew with alcoholic parents and poorer than most of you ... basically in the projects of Sanford. People with far less than me are doing better than I.  People blaming their parents or their past situation is a pet peeve of mine so you aren't going to get a whole lot of sympathy from me about not having options to better yourself. We all become adults ...  unfortunately many people never accept responsibility for themselves.

I've got no issue with some sort of temporary help for people that are down but the blanket social programs that democrats support are wasteful and useless. People are either going to try to better themselves or they are going to make excuses and see what they can get handed to them.

Well said.  Personal accountability is foreign in current times, everything is someone's fault.

I don't believe people need to be "personally accountable" for their own healthcare any more than they should be "personally accountable" for putting out the flames if their house is on fire, or for transporting sewage from their home, or for negotiating clean water to be delivered to their tap.

That's pure non sense. YOU are the main person that is "personally accountable" for your healthcare. The choices you make and how you live your life dictate your healthcare more than anything else. Sure accidents and sickness happen. But if you eat shit, don't exercise, smoke, drink, and/or do drugs you're going to have health problems. Shit, most of America is obese or almost obese by choice. Adults should be personally accountable for their poor choices.

Diet and exercise matter, but genetics, environmental factors and accidents caused by others are a. larger factor.

And Spider’s anolgy holds even without that because the majority of house fires are caused by the homeowners and you generate all of your own sewage.  Yet like healthcare in most societies they are handled as a community function.

Strange, I would’ve thought someone who believed in absolute separation of church and state would’ve seen that’s a two-way street.

Hehe. So universal healthcare, which would cost less than having everyone buy their own is wasteful? Even a right-leaning think-tank said it would cost less than our current system. Please go on about how wasteful and useless it is. It really just boils down to you are OK, for now, don't have an issue, so screw everyone else. Man, if only people would follow Jesus' teachings. What a world it would be.

There's the problem...you think I simply want to enforce the separation of church and State in this country, but what I really want is to get rid of organized religion in all its forms, worldwide.

A reasonable goal? Probably not, as there are way too many people on this planet who share your particular mental illness. But hey...it's something worth praying for, right. ;)

It just amuses me how the atheists want to actually help the less fortunate and those in need while the Christians would leave them to die on the side of the road. It really is a mental illness. :)

Good to see you haven't gotten any less cunty in your old age.  ;D

Amen, brother.  As Blaise Pascal said, "Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction."    

People die waiting on Universal Healthcare all the time because of waiting lists. The rich people in those countries come here to be treated. Our very own VA is the worst coverage out there. Why? Because it's run by the government. Imagine how much worse it would be running the whole country.  Once I get the same coverage as those who do not pay for it then I will be a part of the worst coverage and get put on waiting lists too ... which is odd because I would actually be paying more for less. 

While this is an almost impossible goal....but if we had a system in which the wealthy and powerful were banned from paying for private care and every one received equal care, then we would have the political will to improve the system for everyone.  If we could impose a system where Senators, Reps and the cabinet and their families received VA treatment and were banned from seeking private care, you could bet the VA system would be improved in short order. 

But even so, the VA system is vastly superior to what many people have.

Essential you are taking someone's freedom away, the freedom to pay for better health coverage.  You can't ban people from stuff like that, we aren't communists.  

The VA system is not vastly superior to what many have, it's vastly inferior to what many people have.  It's better than what few people have.

Many millions more die here because they can't even afford to get on a waiting list.

(https://content.gallup.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/rhqsnyelsk6x4jxswxqvjg.png)
Much like the problems with democracy, the only thing worse than government healthcare is everything else.

My dad uses the VA on a  regular basis and I haven't heard much of a complaint from him.

Mine does too, and all he has is complaints.  It took them many denials and a lot of waiting before they made things right.

Everyone knows someone who has complaints about their healthcare (unless they don't have any healthcare coverage to complain about).  That isn't a useful metric.

What IS useful is to compare government healthcare to private insurance.  And the results of that comparison are crystal clear: people on government healthcare plans are consistently more satisfied than those in private plans, and in countries with universal government healthcare, any politician who proposed going back to a private system would quickly find himself out of a job.

This is essentially conceded by opponents of universal government healthcare, who regularly say that if we implement such a plan, there's no way we'll ever be able to go back (which implies it couldn't possibly be worse than what we have now).

No, it means that once you give something away for free or vastly reduced cost, then the recipients will resist giving it up regardless of whether it's good or not.

soo you're saying if government gets invovled it'll be at a vastly reduced cost .. good .. sounds great .. lets do that

To tie this back to the original topic, our current healthcare system - which forces a lot of people to rely on charity for their healthcare costs - does not create anywhere near as many satisfied participants as either:

a) universal healthcare in other countries, which regularly polls higher there than our private system does here, or
b) government-run healthcare here in our own country

Take another look at that chart I posted.  Literally every form of government-run healthcare polls higher than literally every form of private healthcare.

For-profit healthcare does not work.  Our system of capitalism is fundamentally incompatible with health services.  You cannot approach treating prostate cancer like buying a new car.  You cannot shop around for the best deal if you puncture a lung in a car accident.

In life you usually get what you pay for and anything the government gets involved with is usually a train wreck shit show. Anyhow, contact your representatives and pitch the idea. I have a feeling it ain't happening any time soon.

you're right . electrical grid, army, navy, interstate highways, the hoover dam, the internet, canals, nuclear power, bridges, tunnels, landing on the moon .. yep .. all a shit show

I'll agree with the military. However, the government's main function is to protect its citizens from outside attack.

Landing on the moon is a moot point since it was 47 years ago and didn't really help anyone except the lowest bidding government contractors.

As far as the electrical grid, highways, bridges, dams, and tunnels (infrastructure). American Society of Civil Engineers' 2017 Infrastructure Report Card gave a grade of D+. Argue with that all you want, but US infrastructure is crumbling.
 
Aviation: D
Bridges: C+
Dams: D
Drinking Water: D
Energy: D+
Hazardous Waste: D+
Inland Waterways: D
Levees: D
Parks and Recreation: D+
Ports: C+
Roads: D
Schools: D+
Solid Waste: C+
Transit: D-
Wastewater: D+

There's no indication that health care would be any different. So yes, let's extrapolate the "D+" to government run healthcare and call it a SHIT SHOW.

that's what happens when you don't invest in preventative maintenance and instead have a reactionist policy towards stuff

just like the US healthcare as compared to every other industrialized country

To be clear: the American Society of Civil Engineers' Infrastructure Report Card assigns letter grades "based on the physical condition and needed investments for improvement."  So yeah, after 40 years of conservatives attacking the funding of public infrastructure projects, our infrastructure is badly in need of improvement and repair.

But this isn't even relevant, since the meaningful question is not "How terrible are government programs?", but rather "How much better or worse are private programs?"  And it's clear that even if government healthcare is bad, private healthcare is far worse.

So once again, it's like detailing all the problems with (representative) democracy as a form of government: it may be terrible, but everything else is even worse.

Yeah, I can't understand how they don't get that. I guess they feel invisible enemies and made up threats by their dear leader are more important.