4 ms·

Why not just then vote against tax hikes and instead donate your money to the government or to charity organizations? When you vote for tax hikes you're essent

Why not just then vote against tax hikes and instead donate your money to the government or to charity organizations? When you vote for tax hikes you're essentially reaching into your pocket, taking out money, and giving it to someone. Then you're reaching into your neighbor's pocket, taking some more out, and giving it to yourself and that other third party. Why not let people choose to give their money? Why vote to force them to give their money?

lostlogin 10y ago
Because I don't believe that would work. Where has it been tried and worked?
- gravypod 10y ago
  Where has it been tried? It seems most people try and jump to their neighbors wallets. Despite that, charity is still a huge factor for changing the world. The B&M Gates foundation is one of many organizations that sacrifices gains to try and make the world a better place for ideological reasons. No dipping into someone else's pocket needed. The fact that a majority of people are willing to vote for more taxes is proof that this is either a) not needed because those people would donate because they think it's important, or b) the majority is just using the fact that they're the majorty as a reason it's ok to take from others.
  - lostlogin 10y ago
    I don't see it as jumping to others pocket - I see it as paying my way and paying a little towards others too. Relying on some mythical good guys to pay for us all seems a little hopeful.
enraged_camel 10y ago
>> Why not let people choose to give their money? Why vote to force them to give their money? Taxes are not your money. They are, by their very definition, money you owe the government. Meaning they are the government's money. They just happen to temporarily enter your pocket before leaving it again for their rightful owner. To answer your question though, charity is not a substitute for taxation because charity is not scalable.

lostlogin 10y ago

Because I don't believe that would work. Where has it been tried and worked?

gravypod 10y ago
Where has it been tried? It seems most people try and jump to their neighbors wallets. Despite that, charity is still a huge factor for changing the world. The B&M Gates foundation is one of many organizations that sacrifices gains to try and make the world a better place for ideological reasons. No dipping into someone else's pocket needed. The fact that a majority of people are willing to vote for more taxes is proof that this is either a) not needed because those people would donate because they think it's important, or b) the majority is just using the fact that they're the majorty as a reason it's ok to take from others.
- lostlogin 10y ago
  I don't see it as jumping to others pocket - I see it as paying my way and paying a little towards others too. Relying on some mythical good guys to pay for us all seems a little hopeful.

enraged_camel 10y ago

>> Why not let people choose to give their money? Why vote to force them to give their money? Taxes are not your money. They are, by their very definition, money you owe the government. Meaning they are the government's money. They just happen to temporarily enter your pocket before leaving it again for their rightful owner. To answer your question though, charity is not a substitute for taxation because charity is not scalable.