Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I have been listening to many people on the FORUM put out the concept that we should go back to an era where all social services are taken care of by charities. I have alot of reservations on this front and would like to hear how people envision the private charities would manage the problems and what the outcome would be of charity vs government social services.
Well one prerequisite would be lower government spending with a reduction in taxes. We already are the most generous nation in the world in terms of both our charitable spending and time spent volunteering.
There already are independent sources of information about charities that provide relative and absolute ratings on individual organization's efficiencies, salaries, etc. Using the information that is already available, people can make wise decisions as to where their donations are best put to use. This is a huge improvement over the current system where funds are taken from individuals under threat of force and redistributed to programs without a direct say by the "donor". This system does not encourage further involvement through the donation of time, nor does it provide a system which encourages efficiency or accountability.
If you are looking to provide higher levels of participation by the general public, make each dollar donated be equivalent to a tax credit. Encourage employers to make payroll deduction systems available to employees wishing to automate their donations. Provide tax incentives for people who volunteer their time, not just expenses incurred in traveling to the charity.
I understand the funding aspect. I am more concerned in this threat about how the people who are in need of help are going to get the help. I know people do not like being taxed for people they disdain. How will those same disdained individuals be given help under the charity only system.
This reminds me of my childhood, when I helped to lead the way to discover California, during the great gold rush. I remember how we did it in groups. The neighbors all pitched in to help build our log home, to help build roads through the forests, to protect one another from the indians, grow and harvest corn, establish trade routes... All without government money or taxes..
Why it was a community, where we needed each other to survive, and we all cared about helping one another, not because it was mandated from the government, or because we were paid to, but because we needed each other to survive..
Yes, I remember back several hundred years to my childhood when we managed without the government, where we brought home our paychecks, and I mean our full paychecks, and didnt need to work 1/2 the year just to support the government, exactly like our founding fathers wanted us to live..
NOTE: Anyone who believes this story needs to get a pounding on the head, but thats exactly the way it should be.
This reminds me of my childhood, when I helped to lead the way to discover California, during the great gold rush. I remember how we did it in groups. The neighbors all pitched in to help build our log home, to help build roads through the forests, to protect one another from the indians, grow and harvest corn, establish trade routes... All without government money or taxes..
Why it was a community, where we needed each other to survive, and we all cared about helping one another, not because it was mandated from the government, or because we were paid to, but because we needed each other to survive..
Yes, I remember back several hundred years to my childhood when we managed without the government, where we brought home our paychecks, and I mean our full paychecks, and didnt need to work 1/2 the year just to support the government, exactly like our founding fathers wanted us to live..
NOTE: Anyone who believes this story needs to get a pounding on the head, but thats exactly the way it should be.
So you favor communal living! So the members of the community would be responsible to help each other out, for example, if you broke your leg and could not mine anymore, your neighbors would provide help.
I understand the funding aspect. I am more concerned in this threat about how the people who are in need of help are going to get the help. I know people do not like being taxed for people they disdain. How will those same disdained individuals be given help under the charity only system.
I'm not sure I follow your remark about people being taxed for people they disdain. There are most certainly abuses of the current system, but I would assume that any responsible person would agree that such abuse should not be encouraged.
So who are you suggesting wouldn't be helped by charities? People who aren't willing to do what is necessary to help themselves in the long run?
So you favor communal living! So the members of the community would be responsible to help each other out, for example, if you broke your leg and could not mine anymore, your neighbors would provide help.
Donating money to charities correlates to a higher likelyhood of volunteering time as well. Time is equally if not more important than donating money, especially if focused on an area of personal expertise. Our current system provides no motivation for people to volunteer their time beyond the obvious reward of helping others... but a system which detaches giving through taxation provides further separation of the average person from those less fortunate. By bringing back the direct action of giving, the ones giving will be more involved in the process, and should be more likely to volunteer time in addition to money.
This does bring back elements of belonging to a community that has been lost in many areas.
So you favor communal living! So the members of the community would be responsible to help each other out, for example, if you broke your leg and could not mine anymore, your neighbors would provide help.
Thats pretty much what our government was based upon.. at the very largest size.. a state by state basis.. federal government was not supposed to have anything to do with our lives...
We'd see a lot less fraud. We'd see perfectly fit people living off phony fibromyalgia claims with the feds... less drug use...
HOWEVER, I feel government should provide a helping hand to those in need. I am not comfortable with charities being responsible for all assistance.
I'm comfortable with local government filling in the gaps. The more complex the solution, the more local the form of government that should handle it. Our founding fathers had the forethought to incorporate this into our federal government through the Constitution.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
