Charity

[CF DolFan]

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 with 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.

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.

 

[CF DolFan]

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.

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.

[Cathal]

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.

[Tenshot13]

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

[BuccaneerBrad]

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.

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

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

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.

[Spider-Dan]

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.

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.

[Spider-Dan]

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

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.

[pondwater]

let's try to create a society where enough people have food, shelter, safety, and good health so they can enjoy real, meaningful freedom.

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.

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

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?

[Spider-Dan]

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.

[Fau Teixeira]

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

[stinkfish]

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.

[SCFinfan]

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.  

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

^^^ 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.

[Sunstroke]

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.