5 ms·

Why is it important to reflect on that?

by dls2016 5y ago

reidjs 5y ago
I think it's important because it sounds incorrect, but in reality it works out like that. In my experience most people think that if you give a poor person money they are just going to spend it on things which make their life worse, like drugs. It's one way to justify not giving a few quarters or a dollar to a homeless person on the street when they ask.
- hellojesus 5y ago
  Yes, but another way to justify it is that it's your money, and the utility you get from spending it on that random, asking person is less than you would get from the next best expenditure (opportunity cost). That's not to say I don't give charitably or believe in it. I just don't think that anyone has to justify not giving money to some random when asked. I don't believe it's the government's job to hand out money to people in need. I think private charities and churches do a lot better job of spending it than a bureaucratic government, and the auditability of where the money goes is way, way more transparent so long as you're not dealing with a shady organization (which you can easily vet).
  - shakna 5y ago
    > I don't believe it's the government's job to hand out money to people in need. I think private charities and churches do a lot better job of spending it than a bureaucratic government, and the auditability of where the money goes is way, way more transparent so long as you're not dealing with a shady organization (which you can easily vet). There are many "popular" charities for which auditing is as far from transparent as can be, where the majority of their spending never reaches the target audience. To the point where this is the _norm_. Government programs, on the other hand, are required to account for every dollar spent, and issue regular public reports. How would one go about vetting the Salvation Army's spending, for example? They say they have regular independent audits, for none of those are public. So when they say 82% of donations go to the intended target, you must simply trust them.
    - hellojesus 5y ago
      You would determine that specific charity is not trustworthy and move your giving to a charity that transparently releases their spending. There are many charities that exist solely to shelter tax money and give kickbacks to the administration. My recommendation would be to avoid those. You could also determine to give to your local church if you have evidence they're trustworthy. You could also start your own and have direct control over how the money is gifted. Although the government does provide reports as to how money is spent, the individual has very little influence over how that money is actually spent other than via voting or running for office. Being not forced to be a victim of theft allows power to be retained by the individual and exercised with each dollar spent.
      - shakna 5y ago
        I specifically named a charity that is widely considered to be among the most transparent, with the most real-world effect. It would appear, by your metric, that no such organisations actually exist. Hence the invitation to expand on the onus you require of individuals to prevent unnecessary deaths. The utility of government exists to cater for the citizens, regardless of who they are. Referring to the underpinning mechanism for providing such utility as theft, is strongly indicative of either a lack of working theory, or a desire for anarchism.
        hellojesus 5y ago
        > The utility of government exists to cater for the citizens, regardless of who they are. This is more or less my point. Taxes used for food/housing of individuals is akin to wealth redistribution. It is not money going to a public good/service but rather to individuals via an involuntary transaction. While it may benefit the party receiving the redistributed wealth, it does not necessarily benefit the giving party (though it may). Therefore the government is not catering to all citizens. In fact, it is actively harming some. While the Salvation Army may be considered a great charity by many, it seems to fall short on transparency so you are correct in that I would recommend focusing elsewhere for giving. Edit: it also leads to moral hazard in a variety of ways such as corporate subsidiaries for low wage positions because they know workers will qualify for government handouts and therefore the workers demand lower wages.

Why is it important to reflect on that?

I think it's important because it sounds incorrect, but in reality it works out like that. In my experience most people think that if you give a poor person money they are just going to spend it on things which make their life worse, like drugs. It's one way to justify not giving a few quarters or a dollar to a homeless person on the street when they ask.

hellojesus 5y ago
Yes, but another way to justify it is that it's your money, and the utility you get from spending it on that random, asking person is less than you would get from the next best expenditure (opportunity cost). That's not to say I don't give charitably or believe in it. I just don't think that anyone has to justify not giving money to some random when asked. I don't believe it's the government's job to hand out money to people in need. I think private charities and churches do a lot better job of spending it than a bureaucratic government, and the auditability of where the money goes is way, way more transparent so long as you're not dealing with a shady organization (which you can easily vet).
- shakna 5y ago
  > I don't believe it's the government's job to hand out money to people in need. I think private charities and churches do a lot better job of spending it than a bureaucratic government, and the auditability of where the money goes is way, way more transparent so long as you're not dealing with a shady organization (which you can easily vet). There are many "popular" charities for which auditing is as far from transparent as can be, where the majority of their spending never reaches the target audience. To the point where this is the _norm_. Government programs, on the other hand, are required to account for every dollar spent, and issue regular public reports. How would one go about vetting the Salvation Army's spending, for example? They say they have regular independent audits, for none of those are public. So when they say 82% of donations go to the intended target, you must simply trust them.
  - hellojesus 5y ago
    You would determine that specific charity is not trustworthy and move your giving to a charity that transparently releases their spending. There are many charities that exist solely to shelter tax money and give kickbacks to the administration. My recommendation would be to avoid those. You could also determine to give to your local church if you have evidence they're trustworthy. You could also start your own and have direct control over how the money is gifted. Although the government does provide reports as to how money is spent, the individual has very little influence over how that money is actually spent other than via voting or running for office. Being not forced to be a victim of theft allows power to be retained by the individual and exercised with each dollar spent.
    - shakna 5y ago
      I specifically named a charity that is widely considered to be among the most transparent, with the most real-world effect. It would appear, by your metric, that no such organisations actually exist. Hence the invitation to expand on the onus you require of individuals to prevent unnecessary deaths. The utility of government exists to cater for the citizens, regardless of who they are. Referring to the underpinning mechanism for providing such utility as theft, is strongly indicative of either a lack of working theory, or a desire for anarchism.
      - hellojesus 5y ago
        > The utility of government exists to cater for the citizens, regardless of who they are. This is more or less my point. Taxes used for food/housing of individuals is akin to wealth redistribution. It is not money going to a public good/service but rather to individuals via an involuntary transaction. While it may benefit the party receiving the redistributed wealth, it does not necessarily benefit the giving party (though it may). Therefore the government is not catering to all citizens. In fact, it is actively harming some. While the Salvation Army may be considered a great charity by many, it seems to fall short on transparency so you are correct in that I would recommend focusing elsewhere for giving. Edit: it also leads to moral hazard in a variety of ways such as corporate subsidiaries for low wage positions because they know workers will qualify for government handouts and therefore the workers demand lower wages.