3 ms·

If a person is a full-time homemaker, they don't have income so a tax deduction doesn't do much. A credit might, depending on how much it is. I'm curious, do yo

If a person is a full-time homemaker, they don't have income so a tax deduction doesn't do much. A credit might, depending on how much it is. I'm curious, do you know how much they receive? Regarding non-profits, most people have jobs with the non-profit, meaning they give services in direct exchange for money. If people are volunteering their services, they must receive money from somewhere else to live, and that often seems to come from a job, a family member, investment, or inheritance. I don't know of many ways we enable people to do communal work, besides maybe those listed above and maybe the tax credits. Actually, if the tax credit equals $750 and is given to everyone, isn't it the same as the proposal above?

b112 2y ago
I don't know of many ways we enable people to do communal work, besides maybe those listed above and maybe the tax credits. I just told you one. Charities, non-profits or foundations. These are the mechanisms that may be used to pay volunteers. There are also tax incentives for the rich to fund them, charitable donations are deductible. I also said "We have a patch already, it just needs to be deployed more if required." It does not matter that these people are "volunteers", for your goal is to see them funded. Saying it's not reasonable to pay them a wage for their volunteer work, doesn't jive here. You say you just want everyone to receive cash. I don't. At all. I want people doing things of worth to society, even a portion of it to receive cash for their efforts. You should note my culture, in that, I believe the infirm, the sick, those mentally incapable of working, and so on should receive a dignified living. I also belive that even those just generally lazy, or to selfish to work should receive shelter, and food. They should not die from the elements, nor starve. But I certainly believe the lazy and selfish should have no extra capital given to them by the state. Only enough to survive, no more. I also don't think handing out cash to rich, poor, lazy, industrious alike makes sense. Save the cash for those we really need to care for, the infirm, the sick, and so on. There is a significant portion of people that are quite simply lazy. I believe it to be double digits. I am not a fan of planned social governance, but if it were to happen, I'd start by prohibiting the lazy from procreating. We don't need more of those genes.
- jimkleiber 2y ago
  Maybe I've been missing it, but I'm not sure how non-profits pay people to volunteer. I thought that paying them directly for their services would turn them into a contractor or employee, and thus make their services no longer volunteer services. But I would love to be incorrect about that, as then I think it could help me with a lot of my work. Edit: And about wanting them to receive cash, I'd actually prefer if everyone received shelter and food and water and air and healthcare, but if we're not going to provide those things, then if we provide them cash maybe they can get them.

b112 2y ago

I don't know of many ways we enable people to do communal work, besides maybe those listed above and maybe the tax credits. I just told you one. Charities, non-profits or foundations. These are the mechanisms that may be used to pay volunteers. There are also tax incentives for the rich to fund them, charitable donations are deductible. I also said "We have a patch already, it just needs to be deployed more if required." It does not matter that these people are "volunteers", for your goal is to see them funded. Saying it's not reasonable to pay them a wage for their volunteer work, doesn't jive here. You say you just want everyone to receive cash. I don't. At all. I want people doing things of worth to society, even a portion of it to receive cash for their efforts. You should note my culture, in that, I believe the infirm, the sick, those mentally incapable of working, and so on should receive a dignified living. I also belive that even those just generally lazy, or to selfish to work should receive shelter, and food. They should not die from the elements, nor starve. But I certainly believe the lazy and selfish should have no extra capital given to them by the state. Only enough to survive, no more. I also don't think handing out cash to rich, poor, lazy, industrious alike makes sense. Save the cash for those we really need to care for, the infirm, the sick, and so on. There is a significant portion of people that are quite simply lazy. I believe it to be double digits. I am not a fan of planned social governance, but if it were to happen, I'd start by prohibiting the lazy from procreating. We don't need more of those genes.

jimkleiber 2y ago
Maybe I've been missing it, but I'm not sure how non-profits pay people to volunteer. I thought that paying them directly for their services would turn them into a contractor or employee, and thus make their services no longer volunteer services. But I would love to be incorrect about that, as then I think it could help me with a lot of my work. Edit: And about wanting them to receive cash, I'd actually prefer if everyone received shelter and food and water and air and healthcare, but if we're not going to provide those things, then if we provide them cash maybe they can get them.