4 ms·
The alternative would have been to tax them more and use the tax results to help people. Let's compare: Taxes: - Predictable income - Democratic control o
by sgift 10y ago
The alternative would have been to tax them more and use the tax results to help people. Let's compare:
Taxes:
- Predictable income
- Democratic control over the spending
- Big risk of misuse due to lobbying
Charity:
- No predictability, depends on the whim of those who could spend
- No democratic control
- Small risk of misuse due to lobbying
I welcome everyone to add to both lists. From my comment history it should be pretty clear that I'm not a fan of hoping that those with money are in a charitable mood, but I know there's a strong faction with an opposing view of the world, which could help balancing such a list.
- LyndsySimon 10y ago- Taxes are largely avoidable by those with sufficient wealth. - Taxes reduce economic development by those who control capital. - Taxes reduce charitable giving, especially by those in the upper middle class. - Charity doesn't require the implication of violence for noncompliance. - Charity encourages more direct management and oversight by those who give. I would also argue that "No democratic control" is not true for charity, but rather that control is biased in favor of those who control capital. > I welcome everyone to add to both lists. From my comment history it should be pretty clear that I'm not a fan of hoping that those with money are in a charitable mood, but I know there's a strong faction with an opposing view of the world, which could help balancing such a list. Note that my suggestions are not accusatory, but in the spirit of this statement.