Give2Attain is conflicted !!!
For years I have been striving to increase my charitable giving level. I sucked at giving when I was in college. Then I got better at it when I started working, I got up to the 3% level. Then my income increased and I became a "responsible adult". ( though some may disagree) The giving kept increasing significantly with my dream of sometime getting to that elusive 10%.
However after learning more about how many of my tax dollars are being transferred to the "needy" and "not so needy" via my taxes, I am seriously considering cutting back significantly on my charitable giving. I am happy giving unto Caesar what is Caesars, but giving to Bill, Tina, Dan, etc, etc, etc???
I mean if we the more successful will be forced to pay higher rates in the name of the "needy" and "not so needy", why should we keep giving to private charities? Thoughts?
US Govt Spend Pie Chart
G2A Welfare is Not Charity
G2A God Works in Mysterious Ways
G2A Protector of the Small
G2A Romney / Obama Charity
G2A Entitlement or Gratitude
G2A Can Politicians be Efficacious
G2A Needs vs Wants
G2A Tax the Rich, Then What?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
18 comments:
Let's recall that the Republicans nominated a candidate who wanted to transfer tax dollars away from the "needy", that is, us, to his wealthy friends.
They call them entitlements for a reason. We worked for them, we earned them, we paid tax dollars which had a demonstrable impact on our lifestyles in order that we have a right to them. The "needy" aren't the ones who brought us to this impasse. They didn't take their Bush era tax cuts and invest them in exotic economic financial instruments. They didn't fund the real estate boom. What they did is what people are supposed to do. Go to school, get married, have kids, buy a house and put a little money aside in investments managed by people who were supposed to know what they were doing, but who didn't. The very same people by the way who are now complaining that the people who entrusted them with their financial futures deserve to be punished by the marketplace for their foolishness.
--Hiram
Now back to the point.
Now why should the millions of people like me continue to give billions of dollars to real charities if we citizens are deciding that its governments job to provide food, housing, healthcare, heating assistance, utility assistance, training, extended unemployment benefits, phones, etc for the "needy" and not so "needy".
I agree that folks paid for social security, benefits somewhat aligned with payment. But there is no way they paid for Medicare, the benefit is way out pacing the payments.
To be charitable, I suppose. I wouldn't donate money to things that are already provided for. I wouldn't, for example, donate to Social Security or Medicare. I wouldn't in general, donate to the federal government although some people do, and I respect their choice.
--Hiram
But it seems that the Liberals want government to provide almost everything by taking my Private Property and giving it to others.... I guess I haven't heard of a clothing allowance yet, but may happen...
I guess I can drop my donations to United way, Red cross, Prism, Food shelves, Bolder options, Seven dreams, etc. Between FEMA, TANF, Higher School Funding, Medicaid, etc, I am already giving deeply.
I guess that leaves me with the Church. Maybe that is okay.
But it seems that the Liberals want government to provide almost everything by taking my Private Property and giving it to others
Well, not everything, I focus on health care. We have heard on this board that the duties we have with each other can be discharged through charities. I am available for convincing on this issue.
--Hiram
Not everything... What more is there than food, housing, healthcare, job training, disaster relief, disability payments, extended unemployment, childcare, etc?
First of all, government cannot do charity at all-- not possible. Charity requires a willing giver and a grateful recipient. Neither occurs in a government program, because money is forced from us by taxes and given to people for merely putting their hand out. Despite what liberals think, paying your taxes is NOT a charitable endeavor, and rich liberals are the consummate hypocrites because they refuse to give MORE money to government for "charity." Nothing prevents them from paying extra in taxes, as Mitt Romney does, and their private charitable giving almost always pales beside Mitt Romney's charitable giving(and that of conservatives generally).
I will not cut back my charitable giving because that is my obligation. I have sometimes threatened to do so, however, when my church leaders want government to raise taxes to "care for the poor." I tell them that I thought the church had that obligation, but if they think it is the role of the government instead, they will understand if I quit tithing to the church.
J. Ewing
Whether government can fulfill the role of a charity in a positive and effective manner, or if it will lead to more entitlements and robbing seems immaterial to my particular moral crisis. The majority of Americans have decided that this will be one of government's roles.
And if they are spending 30% of my tax dollars on "charity", I am already tithing...
Every man according as he purposeth in his heart, so let him give; not grudgingly, or of necessity: for God loveth a cheerful giver.
2 Cornithians 9:7.
So let that be your guide.
--Annie
Hey stranger, long time no hear from. I don't forsee myself stopping charitable giving, otherwise I would have to change the name of my blog... What a pain... (hahaha)
I guess I can be a cheerful giver as I pay my taxes, instead of sending the check to the United Way, PRISM, Red Cross, Seven Dreams, Church, etc.
I am pretty sure Rome was not spending 30% of their budget on social services back in the day when the verses were written...
CATO Welfare State
"so let him give; not grudgingly, or of necessity" Looking at those last 2 words, I wonder what God would think of people forcing others to "give".
So if the Liberal leaning folks increase the Govt's social services budget from 30% to 40%, after further raising taxes on us "haves". Is that the time to stop giving to charities?
Or maybe 50%? At some point, I would assuming giving more becomes counter productive.
I wonder how many of the big time donors are thinking the same things I am? I wonder what that tax hike on the rich will cost charities? Or if they will give more to avoid that rate?
It is worth some thought...
I made an error... Apparently we spend ~15% on "welfare". ($952 Billion out $6,400 Billion)
US Spending
Looks like I can keep giving for awhile longer... (assume 32% total tax X 15% social spend = 5%...)
Yeah, taxed to attain doesn't sound nearly as nice. . .
--Annie
Now that's funny, and I agree !!!
"I made an error... Apparently we spend ~15% on "welfare". ($952 Billion out $6,400 Billion)" -- John
Apparently You made an error again, because you compared federal welfare spending against ALL government spending. Apples to apples – federal budget alone – welfare is about 26% of federal spending, and a whopping 38% of federal revenues. Add state spending to that and we are on the Greece-y slope. What is worse is that if you divide just the trillion dollars the federal government spends on welfare by the number of people in poverty – 50 million – you find that a single mother with one child is making $40,000 per year, with no other income! With two children, it's $60,000 per year, and upper-middle-class! Even if you believe that government can and should do "charity," you have to concede that they do it with extraordinary inefficiency and should get out of the charity business as quickly as possible for that reason.
J. Ewing
Sources?
My $952 billion came right from the linked CATO document.
I used the same document. We know the federal budget is 3.8T and federal welfare is ~ 1T (962 or whatever you said). But you need to add health care spending to the welfare line, or at least half of it, to get the total "means tested welfare" number. Your chart probably doesn't include food stamps either, since that's USDA, nor rent support, which is HUD.
Read more carefully...
Pg 10 conclusions...
Fed: $668 Billion
State & Local: $284 Billion
Medicaid is in there... Pg 4.
At this stage I'm simply going to take your word for it, because whether welfare accounts for 15% or 45% of government spending, the simple fact is that the vast majority of that money is not only wasted but actually counter productive. It is not charity, but it is wealth redistribution, and that helps nobody and harms the economy. The only real wealth is produced by people working, so paying people to not work actually consumes wealth. If private charity had the same amount of money, we would all be much better off.
J. Ewing
Post a Comment