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.
Tax credit for donations? Tax Reductions? Right on man, right on. Serious.
But, think about it. An average american, say they get an additional $2,500 a year (assuming since not all 300 mill are working and paying the federal tax through their incomes, excluding kids, etcetc). What would they do? A) Spend that $2,500 on a brand new screen TV, or B) Donate to welfare charities.
Not everyone is interested in donating to Welfare.
To curing a disease, to replacing beaten children.. Sure.
But, to help Tyrese pay child support on 6 kids from 6 different strippers... I fail to see why people would dump hundreds of billions. :/
But you have to realize that a tax credit for donations would allow those that are willing to donate to offset the full amount of the donation from their federal income taxes. Don't donate? Fine... have your taxes spent by the government in your behalf. Donate, great... get to choose how your contribution to society is spent.
True, to a degree. When people spend more, the more of a likeliness they will fall into debt. I'm all for dumping billions, even trillions, into the economy to boost it. However, removing welfare is not the way to do it.
Poverty will always exist. As long as they complain, is as long as we need some sort of government program to shut them up and make them feel like we care about them.
Not to mention, poverty isn't always the inability to get a job / keep one, it's the job that matters. Everyone has standards. And, some of the poor prefer to sit in the hell hole they're in rather than working at McDonalds or any other minimum wage job.
Tax credit for donations? Tax Reductions? Right on man, right on. Serious.
But, think about it. An average american, say they get an additional $2,500 a year (assuming since not all 300 mill are working and paying the federal tax through their incomes, excluding kids, etcetc). What would they do? A) Spend that $2,500 on a brand new screen TV, or B) Donate to welfare charities.
Not everyone is interested in donating to Welfare.
To curing a disease, to replacing beaten children.. Sure.
But, to help Tyrese pay child support on 6 kids from 6 different strippers... I fail to see why people would dump hundreds of billions. :/
Your premise is wrong because you stated that I'm all for dumping billions into the economy for the purpose of boosting the economy.. I'm all for dumping welfare for the purpose of boosting the economy, not billions of dollars.
So, that's the real crux. Alot of conservatives think that cutting taxes will spur economic growth. Supply side economics. Yet it doesn't always work out so. People will only invest in an economy if they see a demand for something they want to sell, and they can do so profitably: you cannot create jobs on the back of a population that is poor, sickly, and uneducated, not in a globalizing, technology driven age. Therefore, you need social programs.
Look at Sweden or Finland. They have some of the highest taxes in the world yet they have very productive economies and lead the world in technology, yet they are countries of only a couple million people. On the flip side you have a country like India or China where 3/4 of the population are what we'd consider very poor. The only reason they have an economy at all is both countries have over 2 billion population, and a small percentage of that population is not so poor and can educate their children, recieve good healthcare, and so on.
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.
Private charities are the way to go. But trust me, unlike the government, private charities will keep track of the money they give and ALL lazy people will get $0 a month.
They will have to get a job. That is the American way.
Let's end the entitlement nation and let's get to work, so America can continue to grow stronger.
The reason the government provides welfare is because they seized the opportunity to provide "hope" and "change" (familiar words?) by selling wealth redistribution to a large voting block of people who felt they would get something for nothing. People who were affected by the poor economic policy created by the government in the 20s and 30s. All it did was create generational dependence upon government, people who will continuously vote for representatives who will promise to play Robin Hood, lining their pockets the whole way.
I'm confused about conservative and libertarian attitudes about welfare.
Most of them argue from the neoclassical and "Chicago school" economic theories. In these approaches, a gift of cash always makes individuals better off, and it does not matter whether strings or conditions are attached to the gift. The individual now has more options and they can always turn down the money if they don't like the conditions. This principle is a basic lesson of any intermediate course in microeconomics, regardless of the political persuasion of the instructor.
When it comes to government assistance, critics often discard or neglect this argument. The notion of freely-choosing individuals, who equate costs and benefits at the margin, is suddenly ignored or deemphasized.
Private individuals giving gifts of cash are good for individuals because gifts of cash are good, but governments giving out gifts of cash are bad because gifts of cash harm individuals?
The double standard is obvious to everyone except conservatives and libertarians.
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.
Lets look at the fact that by having many charites they can tackle many different issues because social problems are not funding issues. Medical care, domestic abuse, the hungry are all different problems. The government is basically not accountable doesnt allow for flexiablity and most of compassion in government and forms and paperwork is not a helping hand.
The most important reason charities win over Government is the people who work or start a mission of charitiable work have the passion to help others. It is not just a job it more then that. They breath, eat and sleep helping others and people willing to donate time and money for a cause not just a TAX. Usually that charity impacted them or changed their life. Or they have someone who close to them died of Cancer they can do much more in changing the world with the drive and funding that will be much larger then Government will ever TAX. That is the difference in helping others in the time when people need help and lets creative people find better ways to help those without government red tape. Depending on the charity I think they would all do things differently and how to apply etc. Go watch Extreme home makeover on ABC and what they. It is good business, helps a family and community and most of all is done without Government.
If you are asking the government to build a home in 7 days for a family it would take them 3 months to get the paperwork done alone.
When America has ecomomic freedom their own paycheck you will see the greatest change in America, you wont see anyone of that in more Government and more TAXES. You must remember money is power in the hands of the people who have it. If you have your money you will find you have the power and they scares government and means you won't need to run the government for every little problem.
As far as reducing taxes I doubt there is any other thing done now days. Kennedy reduced taxes to spur the economy during his presidency. In fact congress just reduced taxes by giving a rebate on taxes. The problem I have with welfare is that it is supposed to be a helping hand. What it has done is move people into a situation that is more permmanent and effects generations to come. But that said there is more than one type of welfare. We give welfare to big;small businesses and farmers too. This definely needs to stop. We also need to crackdown on people that committ tax fraud by not declaring income 'especaily the wide spread practice in small business. The same that can be siad about people can be said about busness being on welfare.Welafre should be restricted to helping those with permanent disabilities or illnesses.
I work in a social services agency and have for many years.
I can tell you from my perspective, our government welfare and public assistance programs are perpetuating and exascerbatng the very issues of generational poverty and dependence that we are suppossed to be working to eliminate.
We spend billions of dollars on access to medical care when that is the least effective method of improving people's health. We spend virtually nothing to establish, promote, and maintain healthy lifestyles when that is the least costly yet most effective way to improve people's health.
My state identifies and recovers over $60 million a year in improper public assistance payments due to fraud and provider, recipient, and agency errors. We are catching only a small percentage of what is actually occurring. There is probably at least $50-$60 million in outright fraud occurring each year (conservative estimate) and probably an additional $250 million or more in other improper and excess payments. That is just in one state !
Social service fraud, waste, and abuse costs taxpayers billions every year. Yet, the requests for assistance and services just keeps going up.
Why we are continuing to pump money into ineffective and inefficient programs baffles me to no end. What is that about the perfect definition of insanity ... "continuing to do the same thing over and over again and yet expecting different results."
Private charities are the way to go. But trust me, unlike the government, private charities will keep track of the money they give and ALL lazy people will get $0 a month.
They will have to get a job. That is the American way.
Let's end the entitlement nation and let's get to work, so America can continue to grow stronger.
Now where have I heard this attitude before?
Ah, yes, in fact he uses almost the same language as you do:
"It is more than usually desirable that we should make some slight provision for the Poor and destitute, who suffer greatly at the present time. Many thousands are in want of common necessaries; hundreds of thousands are in want of common comforts, sir." "Are there no prisons?" asked Scrooge. "Plenty of prisons," said the gentleman, laying down the pen again. "And the Union workhouses?" demanded Scrooge. "Are they still in operation?" "They are," returned the gentleman. "The Treadmill and the Poor Law are in full vigour, then?" said Scrooge. "Both very busy, sir." "Oh! I was afraid, from what you said at first, that something had occurred to stop them in their useful course," said Scrooge. "I’m very glad to hear it."
"I wish to be left alone," said Scrooge. "Since you ask me what I wish, gentlemen, that is my answer. [T]he establishments I have mentioned...those who are badly off must go there." "Many can’t go there; and many would rather die."
"If they would rather die,” said Scrooge, "they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population."
According to modern economic theory, around 4% of the population must be unemployed at any given time, for an average of six months per person, in order to maintain our capitalistic economy. If that 4% of the population, who are not lazy but are still unemployed (and by definition "cannot find a job"), are given $0 to survive on, they will die, but unfortunately they are not the "surplus population" under this economy, they are still a part of it. If these people die, the labor pool shrinks, causing an economic reaction, usually profit-gouging wage increases as businesses compete for the dwindling supply of workers.
Government welfare keeps capitalism running. Deal with it.
Lets look at the fact that by having many charites they can tackle many different issues because social problems are not funding issues. Medical care, domestic abuse, the hungry are all different problems. The government is basically not accountable doesnt allow for flexiablity and most of compassion in government and forms and paperwork is not a helping hand.
The most important reason charities win over Government is the people who work or start a mission of charitiable work have the passion to help others. It is not just a job it more then that. They breath, eat and sleep helping others and people willing to donate time and money for a cause not just a TAX. Usually that charity impacted them or changed their life. Or they have someone who close to them died of Cancer they can do much more in changing the world with the drive and funding that will be much larger then Government will ever TAX. That is the difference in helping others in the time when people need help and lets creative people find better ways to help those without government red tape. Depending on the charity I think they would all do things differently and how to apply etc.
I've been on the Food Stamp program (TAX) and I've used local food pantries (PRIVATE charities).
The TAX program gave myself and my wife $256 a month, which when budgeted carefully gave us a whole month's nutritious food.
There are three local PRIVATE food pantries. The first gives you three days of food every 30 days. The second gives you three days of food every 60 days. The third gives you three days of food every 90 days. If you do the math and juggle the PRIVATE programs, you can get 6 days of food for three months in a row (1+2, 1+3, 1+2), and then only three days of food every fourth month (from 1 by itself), but any way you slice it the most food you're going to get from the PRIVATE programs is 20% of the food you are going to need for the entire month.
If your job barely pays the rent, utilities, and work travel expenses, people using the TAX program are going to live, and the people using the PRIVATE program are going to die. If you become part of the economically-required 4% unemployed in this country, and remain so for more than two weeks, TAX will keep you alive, PRIVATE will let you die.
Exactly how does "more dead people under PRIVATE than under TAX" prove that TAX is worse than PRIVATE?
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.
Charity over Government
