6 ms·

I tend to find it unfair that people who cannot afford healthcare, shelter and other basic needs have to rely on the goodwill of people to get by. Charity is go

I tend to find it unfair that people who cannot afford healthcare, shelter and other basic needs have to rely on the goodwill of people to get by. Charity is good, but we should be striving for a society where our fundamental needs are guaranteed through taxes. It creates a culture of pity rather than equity and I think it’s wrong.

tssva 6y ago
Fundamental needs being guaranteed through taxes is relying on the goodwill of others. Those paying the taxes can decide at any moment to exert political force to have the taxes eliminated or reduced.
- oddity 6y ago
  Presumably, in a functioning democratic system, those receiving taxes would also have a say in the matter. I don't think your first point is wrong, but there is a difference.
- hestefisk 6y ago
  It’s a lot harder to change the personal income tax rate than it is to decide whether you donate to a charity or not. Tax is a social contract, but it is fair in the sense that those who are able should support those in need.
oddity 6y ago
Just to be clear, I agree with you, but I'm half convinced the culture came first. Charity, being on an individual basis, is quicker moving than governmental action. It fills the gaps, so to speak, and will (and should) always have a place, but the gaps of income inequality (among many other problems) are so deep and our society so incapable of moving to solve them, that we are left to rely on charity and helplessly pray to our Carnegie- or Apple- like demigods (I'm exaggerating a bit here). This problem seems to have a nasty feedback loop with the concentrating of wealth in that more wealth in fewer hands lessens the scope that those with wealth to give can see and increases the damage an actor can do (accidentally, intentionally, or through inaction). I question I have for some people who might read this: I suspect some people slightly more libertarian than I would argue that our society should have a greater emphasis on charity vs taxes, but I have no idea how that would be workable when starting with a huge disparity. UBI with automatic triggers like the Sahm rule, maybe? I don't know. I'm not well read here.
- jelliclesfarm 6y ago
  State enforced taxation will led to state dictated eugenics. That’s the best possible outcome. Worst case scenario: genocide. History informs us of this. I prefer that we choose charity over taxation to prevent worse outcomes than having to say ‘thank you’.
- jelliclesfarm 6y ago
  Look..I don’t know whose tender feelings were hurt that my last comment has been flagged, but we should stop beating around the bush and know the history of our collective humanity. google search that came up...anyone can search on their own. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/oct/06/spirit-of-eugenics-is-still-with-us-as-immigrants-know-to-their-cost https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/oct/06/spirit... [..] The persistence of eugenic ideas can been seen in debates about poverty. From the 1960s concept of the “culture of poverty” to David Cameron’s “troubled families” programme, postwar social policy has remained shackled to ideas incubated within the eugenic movement. It can be seen, too, in the population control movement – the belief that social problems in Africa or Asia are the products of overbreeding. Forced sterilisation may no longer be policy in the west, but western governments and NGOs have pressured countries such as India to sterilise tens of millions of its citizens. [..] When individuals make reproductive decisions on their own and based upon their ability to raise their families on their own, it’s called ‘family planning’ When other people and the state make reproductive choices on your behalf and for ‘collective welfare’, it’s called ‘eugenics’. Tax dollars going for collective welfare are always laced with agendas. When will we learn and how far back do we have to go to know that there is no such thing as free currency without strings attached. We must be free...To make decisions for us..and on our own.
woofcat 6y ago
It's unfair for people to get help from people willing to help, but it's not unfair for people to get help from people against their will?
- cercatrova 6y ago
  Yes, because one is choosing which charity to give to, and the other is enforcing fairness equally, at least for basic needs.
  - bigyikes 6y ago
    Fairness equally, according to your definition of “fairness” and “equally”
- exabrial 6y ago
  I agree with you, 100%. When we remove the opportunity for people to be charitable, we force those in need to accept goods or services from means that are often ill begotten.
  - UncleMeat 6y ago
    How have we removed the opportunity to be charitable?
    - exabrial 6y ago
      Forcibly taking 33 cents out of every dollar the are rightfully entitled to.
      - UncleMeat 6y ago
        “Rightfully entitled” isn’t something that everybody agrees on. But let me ask you, if taxes were cut by 75%, what percentage of that money do you think would end up getting donated to charity? 2%?
mgh2 6y ago
I find it unfair that people who have been born with talents and opportunities take for granted the basic needs that 99% of the world cannot afford - just because they were born at the right place and time. Privilege comes with responsibility toward others... spend some time with the 99% to gain perspective. https://www.gatesfoundation.org/goalkeepers/report/2019-report/#ExaminingInequality https://www.gatesfoundation.org/goalkeepers/report/2019-repo...
ultrarunner 6y ago
If the people cannot afford healthcare, shelter, and other basic needs is it fair to assume that they are not medical professionals, builders, or (e.g.) farmers? If not for compensation how do you propose they obtain healthcare, shelter, or other needs without good will? After all, taxes ultimately don't guarantee fundamental needs are met; production does. As an alternative to good will, you seem to be suggesting that the powerful members of the state force others to help, either directly (particularly in a healthcare setting) or through forceful confiscation and redistribution. While that may solve the problem of poverty (the efficacy of various redistribution schemes is not what I'm particularly interested in here) the idea that it's somehow indicative of a more enlightened society seems backwards. A society that freely and voluntarily gives seems more civil to me. Further, your last sentence doesn't lend much support. While unfortunate circumstances may create a culture of pity, forced redistribution may create a culture of malice and hostility. It may (and, from what I have seen, does) relax any conscientious call to action with the simple excuse, "eh, the government takes care of that."
- esyir 6y ago
  From a game theoretic point of view though, charity is a system that incentivizes defecting. Let the charitable fools burn their lk resources for no gain while you reinforce your position.
  - chii 6y ago
    but if charity gains said person meritocratic/PR wins, may be it's an acceptable. So therefore, those with huge amounts of wealth can use charity as a vehicle to purchase such merits/PR wins.
    - UncleMeat 6y ago
      Does it? Bragging about giving to charity seems to be associated with seeming like an asshole. I’ve gotten zero social credit for massive charitable donations beyond letters written by recipients (which I do appreciate). It is all self satisfaction and helping others.
exabrial 6y ago
I don't give to charity because pity... I give because I'm given an incredible life. I am thankful for my provision and in turn I feel the desire to share with no expectation of return. I feel liberated, happy, and it's truly a joy one can not describe when you see the fruit of your work elevate someone else's life.
- jelliclesfarm 6y ago
  This is a great reason to give to charity. Thanks for sharing. I hope it inspires others. The key words in your comment..that strikes a chord..is “no expectation of return”. It’s a good axiom to follow for everything in life.
runamok 6y ago
I think of it a different way. Many people think our taxes should be used to provide a basic "floor" to support the basic needs of people. E.g. shelter and food. However, all that money flows up to the state or federal level to then get filtered back down to people at the local lavel. An ostensibly better approach is to support local charities to make the lives in you local community better. I support CSA and Second Harvest Silicon Valley for that reason. Personally I'd prefer to be taxed less to have more money to provide to things I care about like food insecurity in my community, education, etc. I had a thought experiment that with my vote I got to attribute my tax dollars to NASA, medical research, national defense, etc. as I see fit.
somethoughts 6y ago
One of the fundamental problems with taxes (other than the waste, corruption and pork barrel projects) is that relative to philanthropy or investing, there is zero information provided back to the donor as to what their contribution enabled. Investing in Tesla you can claim you are saving the world with renewable energy. With charity, likely it is clear to you as the donor that you are doing something to help the world. With taxes, you mail your check in and nothing. There is certainly no thank you note or glimmer of recognition. But in reality, particularly if you look at the state level budgets, it's likely the impact dollar for dollar has a very high potential for helping a lot of people when its used for education, healthcare and the environment. Perhaps the trick is, as tax donors, we have to look for the impact ourselves and mentally take credit for the impact we are having on other people's lives. And perhaps governments need to figure out how to make taxpayer understand in personal terms how they're dollars are being used for good. Then maybe people will enjoy paying tax donations (and maybe even pay a bit more) versus actively working to avoid taxes.
- yladiz 6y ago
  What is a "tax donation"?
  - somethoughts 6y ago
    Its a simple mental re-framing technique that any tax payer can personally do themselves to understand their critical contribution to the society in which they live in come tax day. Since its a completely personal thing - it can be done regardless of whether tax payments are by the government coerced or not.
- searchableguy 6y ago
  > One of the fundamental problems with taxes (other than the waste, corruption and pork barrel projects) is that relative to philanthropy or investing, there is zero information provided back to the donor as to what their contribution enabled. > Investing in Tesla you can claim you are saving the world with renewable energy. With charity, likely it is clear to you as the donor that you are doing something to help the world. Great point. Many developed countries (Australia?) does provide you information on where your taxes were spent. https://i.redd.it/rwvwqq26j3e31.jpg https://i.redd.it/rwvwqq26j3e31.jpg
thegrim33 6y ago
Taxes already pay for social safety nets for every category you mentioned. The fundamental needs are already provided. You could try to make an argument for raising taxes to provide even more of those benefits, but don't try to say that we don't already have homeless shelters, foodbanks, welfare, and so on.

tssva 6y ago

Fundamental needs being guaranteed through taxes is relying on the goodwill of others. Those paying the taxes can decide at any moment to exert political force to have the taxes eliminated or reduced.

oddity 6y ago
Presumably, in a functioning democratic system, those receiving taxes would also have a say in the matter. I don't think your first point is wrong, but there is a difference.
hestefisk 6y ago
It’s a lot harder to change the personal income tax rate than it is to decide whether you donate to a charity or not. Tax is a social contract, but it is fair in the sense that those who are able should support those in need.

oddity 6y ago

Just to be clear, I agree with you, but I'm half convinced the culture came first. Charity, being on an individual basis, is quicker moving than governmental action. It fills the gaps, so to speak, and will (and should) always have a place, but the gaps of income inequality (among many other problems) are so deep and our society so incapable of moving to solve them, that we are left to rely on charity and helplessly pray to our Carnegie- or Apple- like demigods (I'm exaggerating a bit here). This problem seems to have a nasty feedback loop with the concentrating of wealth in that more wealth in fewer hands lessens the scope that those with wealth to give can see and increases the damage an actor can do (accidentally, intentionally, or through inaction). I question I have for some people who might read this: I suspect some people slightly more libertarian than I would argue that our society should have a greater emphasis on charity vs taxes, but I have no idea how that would be workable when starting with a huge disparity. UBI with automatic triggers like the Sahm rule, maybe? I don't know. I'm not well read here.

jelliclesfarm 6y ago
State enforced taxation will led to state dictated eugenics. That’s the best possible outcome. Worst case scenario: genocide. History informs us of this. I prefer that we choose charity over taxation to prevent worse outcomes than having to say ‘thank you’.
jelliclesfarm 6y ago
Look..I don’t know whose tender feelings were hurt that my last comment has been flagged, but we should stop beating around the bush and know the history of our collective humanity. google search that came up...anyone can search on their own. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/oct/06/spirit-of-eugenics-is-still-with-us-as-immigrants-know-to-their-cost https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/oct/06/spirit... [..] The persistence of eugenic ideas can been seen in debates about poverty. From the 1960s concept of the “culture of poverty” to David Cameron’s “troubled families” programme, postwar social policy has remained shackled to ideas incubated within the eugenic movement. It can be seen, too, in the population control movement – the belief that social problems in Africa or Asia are the products of overbreeding. Forced sterilisation may no longer be policy in the west, but western governments and NGOs have pressured countries such as India to sterilise tens of millions of its citizens. [..] When individuals make reproductive decisions on their own and based upon their ability to raise their families on their own, it’s called ‘family planning’ When other people and the state make reproductive choices on your behalf and for ‘collective welfare’, it’s called ‘eugenics’. Tax dollars going for collective welfare are always laced with agendas. When will we learn and how far back do we have to go to know that there is no such thing as free currency without strings attached. We must be free...To make decisions for us..and on our own.

woofcat 6y ago

It's unfair for people to get help from people willing to help, but it's not unfair for people to get help from people against their will?

cercatrova 6y ago
Yes, because one is choosing which charity to give to, and the other is enforcing fairness equally, at least for basic needs.
- bigyikes 6y ago
  Fairness equally, according to your definition of “fairness” and “equally”
exabrial 6y ago
I agree with you, 100%. When we remove the opportunity for people to be charitable, we force those in need to accept goods or services from means that are often ill begotten.
- UncleMeat 6y ago
  How have we removed the opportunity to be charitable?
  - exabrial 6y ago
    Forcibly taking 33 cents out of every dollar the are rightfully entitled to.
    - UncleMeat 6y ago
      “Rightfully entitled” isn’t something that everybody agrees on. But let me ask you, if taxes were cut by 75%, what percentage of that money do you think would end up getting donated to charity? 2%?

mgh2 6y ago

I find it unfair that people who have been born with talents and opportunities take for granted the basic needs that 99% of the world cannot afford - just because they were born at the right place and time. Privilege comes with responsibility toward others... spend some time with the 99% to gain perspective. https://www.gatesfoundation.org/goalkeepers/report/2019-report/#ExaminingInequality https://www.gatesfoundation.org/goalkeepers/report/2019-repo...

ultrarunner 6y ago

If the people cannot afford healthcare, shelter, and other basic needs is it fair to assume that they are not medical professionals, builders, or (e.g.) farmers? If not for compensation how do you propose they obtain healthcare, shelter, or other needs without good will? After all, taxes ultimately don't guarantee fundamental needs are met; production does. As an alternative to good will, you seem to be suggesting that the powerful members of the state force others to help, either directly (particularly in a healthcare setting) or through forceful confiscation and redistribution. While that may solve the problem of poverty (the efficacy of various redistribution schemes is not what I'm particularly interested in here) the idea that it's somehow indicative of a more enlightened society seems backwards. A society that freely and voluntarily gives seems more civil to me. Further, your last sentence doesn't lend much support. While unfortunate circumstances may create a culture of pity, forced redistribution may create a culture of malice and hostility. It may (and, from what I have seen, does) relax any conscientious call to action with the simple excuse, "eh, the government takes care of that."

esyir 6y ago
From a game theoretic point of view though, charity is a system that incentivizes defecting. Let the charitable fools burn their lk resources for no gain while you reinforce your position.
- chii 6y ago
  but if charity gains said person meritocratic/PR wins, may be it's an acceptable. So therefore, those with huge amounts of wealth can use charity as a vehicle to purchase such merits/PR wins.
  - UncleMeat 6y ago
    Does it? Bragging about giving to charity seems to be associated with seeming like an asshole. I’ve gotten zero social credit for massive charitable donations beyond letters written by recipients (which I do appreciate). It is all self satisfaction and helping others.

exabrial 6y ago

I don't give to charity because pity... I give because I'm given an incredible life. I am thankful for my provision and in turn I feel the desire to share with no expectation of return. I feel liberated, happy, and it's truly a joy one can not describe when you see the fruit of your work elevate someone else's life.

jelliclesfarm 6y ago
This is a great reason to give to charity. Thanks for sharing. I hope it inspires others. The key words in your comment..that strikes a chord..is “no expectation of return”. It’s a good axiom to follow for everything in life.

runamok 6y ago

I think of it a different way. Many people think our taxes should be used to provide a basic "floor" to support the basic needs of people. E.g. shelter and food. However, all that money flows up to the state or federal level to then get filtered back down to people at the local lavel. An ostensibly better approach is to support local charities to make the lives in you local community better. I support CSA and Second Harvest Silicon Valley for that reason. Personally I'd prefer to be taxed less to have more money to provide to things I care about like food insecurity in my community, education, etc. I had a thought experiment that with my vote I got to attribute my tax dollars to NASA, medical research, national defense, etc. as I see fit.

somethoughts 6y ago

One of the fundamental problems with taxes (other than the waste, corruption and pork barrel projects) is that relative to philanthropy or investing, there is zero information provided back to the donor as to what their contribution enabled. Investing in Tesla you can claim you are saving the world with renewable energy. With charity, likely it is clear to you as the donor that you are doing something to help the world. With taxes, you mail your check in and nothing. There is certainly no thank you note or glimmer of recognition. But in reality, particularly if you look at the state level budgets, it's likely the impact dollar for dollar has a very high potential for helping a lot of people when its used for education, healthcare and the environment. Perhaps the trick is, as tax donors, we have to look for the impact ourselves and mentally take credit for the impact we are having on other people's lives. And perhaps governments need to figure out how to make taxpayer understand in personal terms how they're dollars are being used for good. Then maybe people will enjoy paying tax donations (and maybe even pay a bit more) versus actively working to avoid taxes.

yladiz 6y ago
What is a "tax donation"?
- somethoughts 6y ago
  Its a simple mental re-framing technique that any tax payer can personally do themselves to understand their critical contribution to the society in which they live in come tax day. Since its a completely personal thing - it can be done regardless of whether tax payments are by the government coerced or not.
searchableguy 6y ago
> One of the fundamental problems with taxes (other than the waste, corruption and pork barrel projects) is that relative to philanthropy or investing, there is zero information provided back to the donor as to what their contribution enabled. > Investing in Tesla you can claim you are saving the world with renewable energy. With charity, likely it is clear to you as the donor that you are doing something to help the world. Great point. Many developed countries (Australia?) does provide you information on where your taxes were spent. https://i.redd.it/rwvwqq26j3e31.jpg https://i.redd.it/rwvwqq26j3e31.jpg

thegrim33 6y ago

Taxes already pay for social safety nets for every category you mentioned. The fundamental needs are already provided. You could try to make an argument for raising taxes to provide even more of those benefits, but don't try to say that we don't already have homeless shelters, foodbanks, welfare, and so on.