I'd rather just pay more taxes

So apparently, every organized group of people find it neccessary to start a food/toy drive for the holidays.  I've been hassled, daily, by my employer, my client, and now people walking through the neighborhood.  I can't go into a grocery store without being accosted by some idiot ringing a bell asking for money, and just this week, my city decided to start fining people for their trash can placement.

So, apparently, society doesn't run so smoothly when you starve it for revenue.  Charity might be able to help those in need, but it's inefficient, annoying, and done more to boost the ego of the givers than help the recievers.

B...b...but private charity means people can voluntarily follow Jesus to give their income; if the state socialises things and takes money away from people who earned it and gives it to single mothers and drug users then that's just wrong.

@ScanIAm: Also frees up the charity workers to do their main charitable work, rather than spending time and effort finding the money from many separate individuals.

Also ensures that minority charities get some funding too (otherwise there's a danger that the cat homes get tons of money and the clinics for the homeless get none).

I've always been happy to outsource my charitable donations to our government, if they could be trusted to actually pass it on to said charities.

Herbie

More tax?

Blasphemy!

Why not eliminate the middle man and give it to them directly?

@ScanIAm: Until recently, it never occurred to me that "salvation" in "Salvation Army" was the Christian definition. I always thought it had to do with "salvaging" * to resell like Goodwill does. I had no idea the "salvaging" had to do with rescuing human souls from the depths of hell.

Anyway, the reason that I found this out is because there's been controversy over the Salvation Army turning away LBGT persons because of their religion-based discriminatory stance against homosexuals. I don't recall ever dropping anything into their red kettles before, and in hindsight I'm glad that I never did so.

7 minutes ago, Maddus Mattus wrote

More tax?

Blasphemy!

Why not eliminate the middle man and give it to them directly?

You have no problem if the tax money goes to big oil though, right?

20 minutes ago, Maddus Mattus wrote

More tax?

Blasphemy!

Why not eliminate the middle man and give it to them directly?

Because I believe it is simpler, more efficient, and more fair if a centralised body deals with the distribution of funds.  If there was some organisation that did this instead of the government, I would be equally happy to use it, but the benefit if including it in taxes is that everyone pays and there's no forgetting or 'getting round to it sometime' involved (never underestimate the power of apathy).

Herbie

4 minutes ago, Dr Herbie wrote

*snip*

Because I believe it is simpler, more efficient, and more fair if a centralised body deals with the distribution of funds.  If there was some organisation that did this instead of the government, I would be equally happy to use it, but the benefit if including it in taxes is that everyone pays and there's no forgetting or 'getting round to it sometime' involved (never underestimate the power of apathy).

Herbie

I have to say that the US IRS is pretty damn efficient at collecting and disbursing money.

25 minutes ago, Dr Herbie wrote

*snip*

Because I believe it is simpler, more efficient, and more fair if a centralised body deals with the distribution of funds.  If there was some organisation that did this instead of the government, I would be equally happy to use it, but the benefit if including it in taxes is that everyone pays and there's no forgetting or 'getting round to it sometime' involved (never underestimate the power of apathy).

Herbie

In an ideal world, that's true. But less money reaches the charity after all of the bureacracy, and the money that you "donate" could go to help someone 2000 miles away instead of improving your own community.

If my tax rate was 10% instead of 30%, I'd definitely give more to local charities. Yes, there is a risk that the homeless kittens get more support than the homeless men, but I think the reason people donate to the kittens now is because their taxa dollars are already going to support the homeless men (at least that's my personal reasoning).

The country either needs to rewrite the constitution and make it a complete socialist government (i.e. higher taxes with more social programs) or go back to their roots and treat the federal government like the EU plus a military.

2 minutes ago, spivonious wrote

The country either needs to rewrite the constitution and make it a complete socialist government (i.e. higher taxes with more social programs) or go back to their roots and treat the federal government like the EU plus a military.

I don't think you anticipate the direction the EU is headed in.

(For the record, I am for a Greater Europe).

@W3bbo: if they let me choose I am for, but in current setup, no.

@spivonious: I agree, bulk of the money never reaches destination. Our country is still looking for the millions that we donated to Haiti.

5 hours ago, ScanIAm wrote

So apparently, every organized group of people find it neccessary to start a food/toy drive for the holidays.  I've been hassled, daily, by my employer, my client, and now people walking through the neighborhood.  I can't go into a grocery store without being accosted by some idiot ringing a bell asking for money, and just this week, my city decided to start fining people for their trash can placement.

So, apparently, society doesn't run so smoothly when you starve it for revenue.  Charity might be able to help those in need, but it's inefficient, annoying, and done more to boost the ego of the givers than help the recievers.

Okay, so you're saying taxes should be higher because you're an anti-social a-hole who hates having to deal with people.

I bet you complain about people trying to get you to sign ballot initiatives also, and people trying to get third parties on the ballot. And want the city to clean up the streets to get rid of homeless beggars.

34 seconds ago, brian.shapiro wrote

*snip*

Okay, so you're saying taxes should be higher because you're an anti-social * who hates having to deal with people.

Not wanted to be solicited for money doesn't make one anti-social. Do you welcome every door-to-door salesman into your house?

They don't let you choose where your taxes go because the individual isn't qualified to make those decisions for the whole of society.  I don't want the masses running the show because at least half of them are of below average intelligence.

I hope that one of the end results of the LHC is that we crack open a wormhole that allows us to peer into alternate realities where various forms of government, economy, and society have flourished.  I'd love to see how well raw, unfettered capitalism works out.

9 minutes ago, cbae wrote

*snip*

Not wanted to be solicited for money doesn't make one anti-social. Do you welcome every door-to-door salesman into your house?

Yes, and if I'm not interested, I say "sorry, I'm not interested". I think people who get annoyed by solicitors are a-holes, frankly.

6 minutes ago, brian.shapiro wrote

*snip*

Okay, so you're saying taxes should be higher because you're an anti-social a-hole who hates having to deal with people.

Well, yes, that's one way of looking at it.  Another way would be that I'm an anti-social a-hole that would very much like to solve these social issues but recognizes that there are more efficient ways to do this.  

I bet you complain about people trying to get you to sign ballot initiatives also, and people trying to get third parties on the ballot. And want the city to clean up the streets to get rid of homeless beggars.

I think you failed to grasp what I'm having a problem with.  The sheer volume of the 'give to the needy' requests have quadrupled since last year.  I'd rather pay taxes that are used to address social problems like lack of food, clothing, housing, etc. 

@ScanIAm:

More efficient or less annoying?

At any rate, the thing that bothered me was your rationale...

But what exactly are you proposing? We already have a safety net, Congress has extended unemployment insurance, people can get Medicaid if they need help, or help from many state-funded private organizations (states fund homeless shelters, free clinics, and housing projects). The federal government, states, and municipal governments are already running large deficits, its not that we need taxes; we're paying for it without the tax revenue. Cities that are creating new fines generally pay things through things like fines or services in the first place,.. cities don't do income, sales, or property taxes.. those are left to the federal or state governments. 

1 hour ago, brian.shapiro wrote

@ScanIAm:

More efficient or less annoying?

Both.  I'll not apologize for being annoyed by solicitations for money. 

But what exactly are you proposing? We already have a safety net, Congress has extended unemployment insurance, people can get Medicaid if they need help, or help from many state-funded private organizations (states fund homeless shelters, free clinics, and housing projects). The federal government, states, and municipal governments are already running large deficits, its not that we need taxes; we're paying for it without the tax revenue. Cities that are creating new fines generally pay things through things like fines or services in the first place,.. cities don't do income, sales, or property taxes.. those are left to the federal or state governments. 

I'm proposing what I pretty much said, twice, already: return to paying taxes at a reasonable level so that we fund social programs that currently aren't able to cover the spread.

And, I'm not sure where you got information about how funding works below the federal level, but you're certainly not describing reality where I live.