6 ms·

Voluntary gifts of money can be sent to the U.S. Treasury at this address: http://www.fms.treas.gov/faq/moretopics_gifts.html http://www.fms.treas.gov/faq/more

by drblast 15y ago

Voluntary gifts of money can be sent to the U.S. Treasury at this address: http://www.fms.treas.gov/faq/moretopics_gifts.html http://www.fms.treas.gov/faq/moretopics_gifts.html One has to ask, if any super rich person really considered the U.S. Government a worthwhile investment, why are they donating to various charities instead of to the Treasury?

netmau5 15y ago
Most decent charities deliver far more per unit donated than the US government could ever wish to achieve. If you're interested in pure charity, you're not going to get much bang for your buck at the federal level.
- drblast 15y ago
  My point exactly. It's easy to consider who's paying what taxes and thinking about if that's fair, but the right question to ask is, "Is this a worthwhile investment?" Who pays what in taxes is really a diversion.
  - henryprecheur 15y ago
    > Who pays what in taxes is really a diversion. The "who" is actually pretty important. Tax the working man more, and you'll discourage working. Tax the rich, and he might move to another country. There are many ways to raise money for the state, and none is really "fair". There will always somebody who'll be screwed in some way.
- hans00 15y ago
  [citation needed]
  - olalonde 15y ago
    Using government data, Robert L. Woodson calculated that, on average, 70 cents of each dollar budgeted for government assistance goes not to the poor, but to the members of the welfare bureaucracy and others serving the poor. Michael Tanner cites regional studies supporting this 70/30 split. http://mises.org/journals/jls/21_2/21_2_1.pdf http://mises.org/journals/jls/21_2/21_2_1.pdf
- entangld 15y ago
  Since when is the US government a charity? Taxes are not optional. Most major donors contribute to things they can put their name on like buildings (see Stanford campus). It's difficult for even most charities to cover operating costs (i.e. labor) with only donations. Most have to apply for grants or do lots of funny numbers to keep their administration costs (i.e. labor) low.
- lsc 15y ago
  really? I thought that there was something of a problem with some charities spending the bulk of their budget on marketing and CEO salaries. as greenspun says: "The federal government funds roads and airports that we all enjoy using. The feds pay for health care for the poor and the old. Our tax dollars pay for intrepid military personnel who go out and kill angry foreigners (in most cases) before they can arrive on U.S. soil and kill Americans here at home. For a non-profit organization of its size, the federal government is surprisingly efficient. Most federal employees work in big box-like office buildings, not in $300 million monuments to an architect's ego. George W. Bush gets paid only $400,000 per year, less than half of what a lot of university presidents earn."[1] I personally have a somewhat less charitable view of effects of military action, at least the military action during my lifetime, but I do think that most of the personnel involved do believe that they are doing the right thing, and those other things, roads and healthcare and stuff; those are pretty great to have. Now, I'm too lazy to dig up non-greenspun references, but it seems that many non-profits serve up rather nice salaries, for rather inefficient work[2] [1]http://web.archive.org/web/20090217002255/http://philip.greenspun.com/materialism/early-retirement/ http://web.archive.org/web/20090217002255/http://philip.gree... [2]http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/philg/2010/07/27/where-your-charitable-donations-end-up/ http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/philg/2010/07/27/where-your-cha...
- dredmorbius 15y ago
  Got any facts to back that up? The American Red Cross, a large, established, and reputable charity, has about 9% general and administrative costs: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Red_Cross http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Red_Cross Medicare, a large, inefficient government fiasco (note: irony) has 3% overhead: http://healthcarereform.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=004083 http://healthcarereform.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourc... Many charities do far worse than the ARC.
geebee 15y ago
The problem is that gifts to charity aren't coercive. I know, it's strange to say that it's a problem if it isn't coercive, and I'd agree that many of the inefficiencies of government stem from the coercive nature of taxes (no need to convince people to give you money if you can just take it by force). But I'm really a moderate in all of this - I personally don't think a modern state can survive on donations, or a "pay only if you think the government will do a good job with the money" tax code. We're gonna have to collect some taxes, rich people (in my opinion) should pay more than poor people, and there's no way people, rich or poor, are just going to pony up out of a deep affection and fondness for the federal government. If tax rates are going to be paid and progressive (they actually aren't), then they'll have to be coercive. I think what Mr. Buffet is arguing here is that the rich need to be coerced into paying more in taxes than they currently do. I'm inclined to agree with him, even if I have to hold my nose as I do.
- ginsweater 15y ago
  It's not just that - even when we're talking Warren Buffett here, the scale of the US govt is totally different. Buffett's entire fortune ($50B according to Wikipedia) would only cover a few weeks' worth of borrowing and then we're right back where we started only Warren Buffett has no more fortune. It's silly to say we should expect him to do that. What he's saying by advocating tax raises is "I will pay more if I know that everyone else will also pay more." He's not interested in paying $XM to reduce the debt by $XM, but he would happily pay a personal cost of $XM if it meant reducing the debt by $XB. (This is called "collective action," and it's also Groupon's business model.)
  - redthrowaway 15y ago
    >What he's saying by advocating tax raises is "I will pay more if I know that everyone else will also pay more." No he isn't. He's saying precisely the opposite: "I would leave rates for 99.7 percent of taxpayers unchanged and continue the current 2-percentage-point reduction in the employee contribution to the payroll tax...But for those making more than $1 million...I would raise rates immediately on taxable income in excess of $1 million, including, of course, dividends and capital gains. And for those who make $10 million or more...I would suggest an additional increase in rate."
yaks_hairbrush 15y ago
The U.S. Government could be a worthwhile investment (as a charity), but it's not doing so right now. We could raise taxes to invest in infrastructure, which would increase future GDP. A charity cannot do this owing to eminent domain issues. That's the real rub about this deficit/debt limit drama: it wouldn't be so bad if the government spent in areas to increase future GDP. However, the government is basically an old-age insurance program with a large army. I don't see these expenditures contributing greatly to future GDP.
Locke1689 15y ago
It is a logical fallacy to equate the statement "I believe the rich should be obligated to pay more in taxes" to "I believe I alone should pay more in taxes."
- cop359 15y ago
  How is it a logical fallacy? If believe A should B I am A Therefore I believe I should B. A = rich people B = pay more taxes
  - 2arrs2ells 15y ago
    Because you are ignoring the "alone" part.
  - chibea 15y ago
    That's implication not equation.

by drblast 15y ago

netmau5 15y ago

Most decent charities deliver far more per unit donated than the US government could ever wish to achieve. If you're interested in pure charity, you're not going to get much bang for your buck at the federal level.

drblast 15y ago
My point exactly. It's easy to consider who's paying what taxes and thinking about if that's fair, but the right question to ask is, "Is this a worthwhile investment?" Who pays what in taxes is really a diversion.
- henryprecheur 15y ago
  > Who pays what in taxes is really a diversion. The "who" is actually pretty important. Tax the working man more, and you'll discourage working. Tax the rich, and he might move to another country. There are many ways to raise money for the state, and none is really "fair". There will always somebody who'll be screwed in some way.
hans00 15y ago
[citation needed]
- olalonde 15y ago
  Using government data, Robert L. Woodson calculated that, on average, 70 cents of each dollar budgeted for government assistance goes not to the poor, but to the members of the welfare bureaucracy and others serving the poor. Michael Tanner cites regional studies supporting this 70/30 split. http://mises.org/journals/jls/21_2/21_2_1.pdf http://mises.org/journals/jls/21_2/21_2_1.pdf
entangld 15y ago
Since when is the US government a charity? Taxes are not optional. Most major donors contribute to things they can put their name on like buildings (see Stanford campus). It's difficult for even most charities to cover operating costs (i.e. labor) with only donations. Most have to apply for grants or do lots of funny numbers to keep their administration costs (i.e. labor) low.
lsc 15y ago
really? I thought that there was something of a problem with some charities spending the bulk of their budget on marketing and CEO salaries. as greenspun says: "The federal government funds roads and airports that we all enjoy using. The feds pay for health care for the poor and the old. Our tax dollars pay for intrepid military personnel who go out and kill angry foreigners (in most cases) before they can arrive on U.S. soil and kill Americans here at home. For a non-profit organization of its size, the federal government is surprisingly efficient. Most federal employees work in big box-like office buildings, not in $300 million monuments to an architect's ego. George W. Bush gets paid only $400,000 per year, less than half of what a lot of university presidents earn."[1] I personally have a somewhat less charitable view of effects of military action, at least the military action during my lifetime, but I do think that most of the personnel involved do believe that they are doing the right thing, and those other things, roads and healthcare and stuff; those are pretty great to have. Now, I'm too lazy to dig up non-greenspun references, but it seems that many non-profits serve up rather nice salaries, for rather inefficient work[2] [1]http://web.archive.org/web/20090217002255/http://philip.greenspun.com/materialism/early-retirement/ http://web.archive.org/web/20090217002255/http://philip.gree... [2]http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/philg/2010/07/27/where-your-charitable-donations-end-up/ http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/philg/2010/07/27/where-your-cha...
dredmorbius 15y ago
Got any facts to back that up? The American Red Cross, a large, established, and reputable charity, has about 9% general and administrative costs: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Red_Cross http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Red_Cross Medicare, a large, inefficient government fiasco (note: irony) has 3% overhead: http://healthcarereform.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=004083 http://healthcarereform.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourc... Many charities do far worse than the ARC.

geebee 15y ago

The problem is that gifts to charity aren't coercive. I know, it's strange to say that it's a problem if it isn't coercive, and I'd agree that many of the inefficiencies of government stem from the coercive nature of taxes (no need to convince people to give you money if you can just take it by force). But I'm really a moderate in all of this - I personally don't think a modern state can survive on donations, or a "pay only if you think the government will do a good job with the money" tax code. We're gonna have to collect some taxes, rich people (in my opinion) should pay more than poor people, and there's no way people, rich or poor, are just going to pony up out of a deep affection and fondness for the federal government. If tax rates are going to be paid and progressive (they actually aren't), then they'll have to be coercive. I think what Mr. Buffet is arguing here is that the rich need to be coerced into paying more in taxes than they currently do. I'm inclined to agree with him, even if I have to hold my nose as I do.

ginsweater 15y ago
It's not just that - even when we're talking Warren Buffett here, the scale of the US govt is totally different. Buffett's entire fortune ($50B according to Wikipedia) would only cover a few weeks' worth of borrowing and then we're right back where we started only Warren Buffett has no more fortune. It's silly to say we should expect him to do that. What he's saying by advocating tax raises is "I will pay more if I know that everyone else will also pay more." He's not interested in paying $XM to reduce the debt by $XM, but he would happily pay a personal cost of $XM if it meant reducing the debt by $XB. (This is called "collective action," and it's also Groupon's business model.)
- redthrowaway 15y ago
  >What he's saying by advocating tax raises is "I will pay more if I know that everyone else will also pay more." No he isn't. He's saying precisely the opposite: "I would leave rates for 99.7 percent of taxpayers unchanged and continue the current 2-percentage-point reduction in the employee contribution to the payroll tax...But for those making more than $1 million...I would raise rates immediately on taxable income in excess of $1 million, including, of course, dividends and capital gains. And for those who make $10 million or more...I would suggest an additional increase in rate."

yaks_hairbrush 15y ago

The U.S. Government could be a worthwhile investment (as a charity), but it's not doing so right now. We could raise taxes to invest in infrastructure, which would increase future GDP. A charity cannot do this owing to eminent domain issues. That's the real rub about this deficit/debt limit drama: it wouldn't be so bad if the government spent in areas to increase future GDP. However, the government is basically an old-age insurance program with a large army. I don't see these expenditures contributing greatly to future GDP.

Locke1689 15y ago

It is a logical fallacy to equate the statement "I believe the rich should be obligated to pay more in taxes" to "I believe I alone should pay more in taxes."

cop359 15y ago
How is it a logical fallacy? If believe A should B I am A Therefore I believe I should B. A = rich people B = pay more taxes
- 2arrs2ells 15y ago
  Because you are ignoring the "alone" part.
- chibea 15y ago
  That's implication not equation.