Charity

[Fau Teixeira]

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.

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

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.

[Spider-Dan]

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.

[fyo]

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.

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

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


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

[Spider-Dan]

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.

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.

[masterfins]

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.

[Spider-Dan]

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.

[Fau Teixeira]

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.

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.

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

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.

[CF DolFan]

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. 

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.

[CF DolFan]

We are the only industrialized nation not to offer health care.  We are the only democracy that can’t figure out gun control.

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.  

[Sunstroke]

We figured out *%&$^ in 1776 and that is we have the right to keep 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...

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

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.

[Fau Teixeira]

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.

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.