Charitable giving

[Traveler]

There seems to be a divide in American society concerning charitable giving. But there are a few principles that seem to transcend social political thinking. One thing we should have learned throughout the many years of human history and that is that government mandated charitable giving seems to quickly morph from charity to tyranny.

It is for this reason that I personally believe that governments should not mandate charity but rather should encourage it. With rare exception the ultra wealthy of America obtained their exorbitant wealth - not by being charity but rather by being ruthless. This is most evident in the popular “reality” TV programs such as Survivor where the mentality is less towards charity and more towards - “Do the other guy in before they do you in.”

In essence - my recommendation is that governments, rather than mandate charity through legislation and law should rather encourage charity at all levels. For example, I believe that the poor should be encouraged to be charitable as well as the ultra wealthy and all in between. Contrary to popular rhetoric, actual charity has little or nothing to do with an attitude of doing or paying one’s fair share. It is more about acting and doing according to one’s love and compassion - not economic state.

How should governments encourage charity? The answer is through taxes and community service. The first concept is that all citizens should be expected to contribute in some way - either through direct taxes or community service. We should not consider someone that cannot or will not contribute as a citizen. Please understand that all in a society do not have to be citizens but only citizens have all the rights of citizens. This should not cause a brain cramp - just a very simple understanding. Thus a person can only obtain “citizenship” by willingness and an ability to contribute.

So everyone, in essence contributes - that is the norm and expatiation. That is the right, responsibility and the defined fairness doctrine. For those whose circumstance is such that community service is difficult - they should be and must be taxed. How do I suggest they be taxed? On a graduated income tax; the more that is earned (or taken in) the more tax they pay. But since private charity is much more effective the charitable monetary contributions of necessity ought to be and must be tax deductible.

The current social political efforts to eliminate charitable deductions from taxes - is in my thinking not just reckless, foolish and ineffective it is also a deliberate step towards oppression and tyranny.

The Traveler

[Dravin]

How should governments encourage charity? The answer is through taxes and community service. The first concept is that all citizens should be expected to contribute in some way - either through direct taxes or community service. We should not consider someone that cannot or will not contribute as a citizen. Please understand that all in a society do not have to be citizens but only citizens have all the rights of citizens. This should not cause a brain cramp - just a very simple understanding. Thus a person can only obtain “citizenship” by willingness and an ability to contribute.

I forsee 14th amendment challenges. If this is happening in Hypotheticaltaria though that's a moot issue, so if so carry on.

[Guest gopecon]

Beyond the tax code incentives that are already in place in America, it's hard to see how "charity" can be encouraged without force. The wealthy can pay, while the poor must work just for the privilege of being a citizen. Sounds a bit totalitarian to me.

Israel has a decent idea with regard to national service. All young people have an obligation to fill to their country. This can be done militarily or through some other community service. Their goal isn't charity, it is survival and ensuring that its citizens are psychologically invested in their country.

[Just_A_Guy]

Of course, then you run into the thirteenth amendment . . .

[Saldrin]

Direct taxation is NOT charity, it is theft.

Edited October 21, 2011 by Saldrin

[Backroads]

Perhaps I read you wrong, but you began your post saying required charity turns to tyranny. True enough. Then you go right on and say that the government should require charity.

I'm confused.

[Traveler]

Direct taxation is NOT charity, it is theft.

Is taxation any more theft than making a profit from someone else's labor?

The Traveler

[Traveler]

Perhaps I read you wrong, but you began your post saying required charity turns to tyranny. True enough. Then you go right on and say that the government should require charity.

I'm confused.

Taxing is not a from of charity - My statement was that the government should encourage charity by charging less tax to those entities that are charitable. How does a tax deduction as a choice require charity?

The Traveler

[Guest gopecon]

Taxation to fund the essential functions of government is not theft, its the cost of living in and enjoying the protection of a nation. When taxes are used as a means of wealth transfer, rather than for projects benefiting the community/nation as a whole, then theft starts to become a more accurate description.

Profiting from someone else's labor is not theft unless that person is your slave. Capitalists put up the funds required to operate businesses. Do you expect them to do so with no thought of reward to offset the risk they are taking? I'd suggest that without a profit incentive we would be living quite a bit differently than we are now; like our ancestors in the dark ages perhaps.

[Backroads]

Taxing is not a from of charity - My statement was that the government should encourage charity by charging less tax to those entities that are charitable. How does a tax deduction as a choice require charity?

The Traveler

You said....

We should not consider someone that cannot or will not contribute as a citizen. Please understand that all in a society do not have to be citizens but only citizens have all the rights of citizens. This should not cause a brain cramp - just a very simple understanding. Thus a person can only obtain “citizenship” by willingness and an ability to contribute.

So everyone, in essence contributes - that is the norm and expatiation. That is the right, responsibility and the defined fairness doctrine. For those whose circumstance is such that community service is difficult - they should be and must be taxed.

While I can certainly understand your differentiation between citizen and having the rights of a citizen, I don't see the point. You say that in order to be an official citizen you MUST GIVE CHARITY. Emphasis on must. If you cannot or will not, you no longer get to be a citizen. Oh, you'll have all the same rights, but then what makes a citizen so special? Obviously there is a difference you're not telling us, and people are forced into giving their time and/or money in order to qualify as a citizen.

You declared charity to be the norm and expectation. If it is expected and required, it has stopped being charity.

You are seriously blurring the line between true charity and actual taxation, allowing true charity to be just another option that will grudgingly be accepted.

[Traveler]

You said....

While I can certainly understand your differentiation between citizen and having the rights of a citizen, I don't see the point. You say that in order to be an official citizen you MUST GIVE CHARITY. Emphasis on must. If you cannot or will not, you no longer get to be a citizen. Oh, you'll have all the same rights, but then what makes a citizen so special? Obviously there is a difference you're not telling us, and people are forced into giving their time and/or money in order to qualify as a citizen.

You declared charity to be the norm and expectation. If it is expected and required, it has stopped being charity.

You are seriously blurring the line between true charity and actual taxation, allowing true charity to be just another option that will grudgingly be accepted.

I implied that a person that is not charitable either perform community service or pay more taxes.

Nothing happens in the entire universe without some incentive. All that I suggest is that if we want our society to be charitable then there must be incentive. If you do not want a charitable society then remove the encentive.

G-d is no different - there are incentives (blessings) provided for goodness and negative incentives to prevent prevent evil.

Are you one of the types of people that think everybody is or should be good for nothing?

The Traveler

[Backroads]

I implied that a person that is not charitable either perform community service or pay more taxes.

Nothing happens in the entire universe without some incentive. All that I suggest is that if we want our society to be charitable then there must be incentive. If you do not want a charitable society then remove the encentive.

G-d is no different - there are incentives (blessings) provided for goodness and negative incentives to prevent prevent evil.

Are you one of the types of people that think everybody is or should be good for nothing?

The Traveler

No, I'm not.

But that is neither here nor there.

Your proposal still forces charity. Basically it's "be charitable or else!" You are punishing those who can't/won't be charitable, which I don't think is your moral right. What you propose would be beneficial to the community, no doubt, but don't try to drag charity into it.

[Saldrin]

Is taxation any more theft than making a profit from someone else's labor?

The Traveler

Making a profit on someone's labor is not theft, they are paid to do a job and are compensated. Taxation is stealing the fruits of someone else labor. so why do you assume that if you see a fat man next to a skinny man that the fat man got fat at the expense of the skinny one?

[Saldrin]

Examples of charity are when you pay your tithe, give a fast offering, help out at the bishops store house, take food to the hungry, visit the sick, donate clothes to those who don't have them. basically its something you have to do. I is my belief that those who prefer taxation to actually giving of themselves are just lazy.

[Backroads]

I is my belief that those who prefer taxation to actually giving of themselves are just lazy.

While I agree to a certain extent, I don't think it's thoroughly true. It's possible that those who prefer taxation to private charity merely believe society, as a whole, has the moral obligation to help those in need, so why not accomplish the ends through taxation?

[james12]

How should governments encourage charity? The answer is through taxes and community service. The first concept is that all citizens should be expected to contribute in some way - either through direct taxes or community service. We should not consider someone that cannot or will not contribute as a citizen. Please understand that all in a society do not have to be citizens but only citizens have all the rights of citizens. This should not cause a brain cramp - just a very simple understanding. Thus a person can only obtain “citizenship” by willingness and an ability to contribute.

So everyone, in essence contributes - that is the norm and expatiation. That is the right, responsibility and the defined fairness doctrine. For those whose circumstance is such that community service is difficult - they should be and must be taxed. How do I suggest they be taxed? On a graduated income tax; the more that is earned (or taken in) the more tax they pay. But since private charity is much more effective the charitable monetary contributions of necessity ought to be and must be tax deductible.

The current social political efforts to eliminate charitable deductions from taxes - is in my thinking not just reckless, foolish and ineffective it is also a deliberate step towards oppression and tyranny.

Traveler,

On the face of it this idea seems useful. But I'm afraid in this case the devil is in the details. Let me give two areas where warning flags come to mind.

- Every individual is expected to contribute: You go so far as to say that citizenship should be tied to contribution. What if a citizen doesn't contribute but claims he has? Does the government then need to police the contribution effort? This means there will need to be some sort of oversight committee and paperwork to ensure all citizens give service or taxes. Not only that, but I can see the government dictating locations where service can be given. Yikes!

- For those who don't do community service they must be taxed: In essence you are saying that government should fund charity. Who should the government give these taxes to? Which organizations get the money? Regardless of who these organizations are, money from the government always comes with strings attached. They want to know where and how the money is being spent.

That is why a deduction is so much better than a tax. Individuals are left to decide where and how the money is spent not the government. James Madison said, "Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government" and I think he was right.

[Backroads]

- Every individual is expected to contribute: You go so far as to say that citizenship should be tied to contribution. What if a citizen doesn't contribute but claims he has? Does the government then need to police the contribution effort? This means there will need to be some sort of oversight committee and paperwork to ensure all citizens give service or taxes. Not only that, but I can see the government dictating locations where service can be given. Yikes!

- For those who don't do community service they must be taxed: In essence you are saying that government should fund charity. Who should the government give these taxes to? Which organizations get the money? Regardless of who these organizations are, money from the government always comes with strings attached. They want to know where and how the money is being spent.

Would the money from those who are taxed go to funding the police force, committees, etc, that exist soley to check for sure if the charitable ones are honest?

[Saldrin]

“Many people imagine that charity is giving a dollar to somebody; but real, genuine charity is giving love and sympathy, and that is the kind of charity that the apostle had reference to in [the] 13th chapter of First Corinthians.”

Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Heber J. Grant, 147