Hacker News Reader

Comment by 6stringmerc | Hacker News Reader

Hopefully you're not the only one, as I share your reluctance to embrace it as the "go-to" model of social constructiveness. There's a lot of good that comes from people "giving back" in one form or another, be it financial, skilled labor, or just simple time and attention when possible. I think it's admirable to want to change "institutions" like education for the better - I've been an advocate for 'progress' ever since I saw some of the challenges back in my own youth - but I can't help but think of such experiments as pet projects. Those can be productive, sure, but do I believe, deep down, that the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative is going to have the answer to the variety of problems that plague Chicago's South Side, New Orleans, or any number of troubled communities? Sigh, might just be me.

View on HN

Would you voluntarily give more taxes to your governments? Or would you rather donate that money to a charity of your choosing / research?

> the answer to the variety of problems that plague Chicago's South Side, New Orleans, or any number of troubled communities?

No one (government, private sector, etc.) has the answer to those problems. Those are really really hard problems that require the cooperation of non-profits, local governments, religious institutions, families, etc. I don't think they're expecting to be a silver bullet.

I, for one, would absolutely voluntarily give more taxes to my government for the sole purpose that all this shit infrastructure would be fixed up. Put people to work on infrastructure projects and I will gladly give up more money in the form of taxes.

Basic income on the premise of infrastructure renovations is something I'm fully behind and I think many more citizens would be too, specifically those getting by on food stamps.

So you would donate to the government, but only if you could ensure that your voluntary tax dollars go to the most important thing?

That's exactly why billionaires donate to their causes directly instead of letting the government allocate it; they don't trust the government with that extra money any more than you do.

Yeah so you just agreed with the above comment - you want control on where your money goes. So does Zuckerberg.

Economically speaking, giving people jobs is far better than tossing 100 million dollars into schools where the students home life is the true source of abandonment in society.

This is a well received economic theory, not a way to save face on taxes by promising to give away money in the future so that I don't have to pay taxes now (Zuck).

>Would you voluntarily give more taxes to your governments?

I already voluntarily pay more taxes than I need to. It's pretty easy to (legally) pay much less tax if you are running your own business.

Also, I and quite a few other people I know don't use GiftAid when giving to charity or buying things from charities (GiftAid basically lets the charity claim back the income tax that I've paid on that money) for the reason that the government is better placed to know what projects need money than I am. They are more likely to spend the money on 'unfashionable' things that don't trigger the same emotional response in people but are actually more effective uses of money.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com