5 ms·

> It still seems like a necessary reform however. Reforms have to be taken into the context of their overall impact towards greater good. If overall charity dr

• taeric 8y ago
  Your own logic is shaky. If it dries up charity organisations, but increases the well being of more people, where does it land?
• lmm 8y ago
  > Reforms have to be taken into the context of their overall impact towards greater good. If overall charity drops, then the reform is bad. Only if the benefits are smaller than the impact of the drop to overall charity. If we taxed a bunch of money that is, say, 95% billionaire tax-avoidance and 5% effective charity, and spent that tax money on the things we democratically spend money on (and say that's, say, 80% lobbying and pork and what have you and 20% effective stuff like infrastructure and well-targeted welfare programs) then that would be a net win.
  • ryandrake 8y ago
    Exactly. This is not a popular opinion but charity (more specifically, the need for charity) should drop. When society relies on plilanthropy to fund the public good, it abdicates its responsibility, allowing a tiny handful of rich philanthropists to decide what is good and what should be funded. In a democracy, the public should decide what good organizations deserve funding, not a few billionaires with potentially massive personal conflicts of interest. This is called plutocracy.
    • jimmy1 8y ago
      > allowing a tiny handful of rich philanthropists to decide Minus the Bill Gates of the world, which we can count on our hands, the vast majority of charity is not done by a "handful of rich philanthropists" but rather, normal, everyday people that want to make a difference. If you turn this into a bureaucratic exercise, there are number of problems that become introduced that have been well pointed out in the past (bureaucracies are slower, the incentives are now not aligned, you now have a third party entity spending instead of first party, so waste is now introduced). The other issue is public charity only works when society shares common values and beliefs. Unfortunately this just simply is not the case anymore in America and if 2016 made that obvious, it's even more apparent with the Kanavaugh hearings. Additionally -- this is how every socialist system has started -- "just let the government do the good for you" which many disagree with on principle: why strip people their freedom to do charitable works on some presupposed better governmental solution? Finally, people forget that the people are what constitutes the public.
      • lmm 8y ago
        > Minus the Bill Gates of the world, which we can count on our hands, the vast majority of charity is not done by a "handful of rich philanthropists" but rather, normal, everyday people that want to make a difference. Weight by money, not by number of people. What proportion of "donations" to 501.cs come from where? > If you turn this into a bureaucratic exercise, there are number of problems that become introduced that have been well pointed out in the past (bureaucracies are slower, the incentives are now not aligned, you now have a third party entity spending instead of first party, so waste is now introduced). Decent charities inherently don't have aligned incentives, because the people they're supposed to benefit are not the people funding them, by definition. So making them accountable is very important and much harder than for other kinds of organisation. > The other issue is public charity only works when society shares common values and beliefs. Unfortunately this just simply is not the case anymore in America and if 2016 made that obvious, it's even more apparent with the Kanavaugh hearings. That we have divergent values and beliefs is all the more reason that public money shouldn't be funding private charities. Private charities can and do push particular political or religious causes, or benefit particular groups and not others. If you want to spend your money on your cause that's diametrically opposed to mine, that's fine - but you shouldn't get to spend my tax dollars too. Publicly-funded organisations have a lot more accountability in terms of having to treat everyone fairly, and that's a good thing. > Additionally -- this is how every socialist system has started -- "just let the government do the good for you" which many disagree with on principle: why strip people their freedom to do charitable works on some presupposed better governmental solution? You still have the freedom to spend your own money as you see fit. You just don't get a special exemption from the democratically-agreed taxes that everyone else has to pay.