Americans give to charity like never before amid pandemic

It's unfair for people to get help from people willing to help, but it's not unfair for people to get help from people against their will?

I find it unfair that people who have been born with talents and opportunities take for granted the basic needs that 99% of the world cannot afford - just because they were born at the right place and time.

Privilege comes with responsibility toward others... spend some time with the 99% to gain perspective.

https://www.gatesfoundation.org/goalkeepers/report/2019-repo...

I don't give to charity because pity... I give because I'm given an incredible life. I am thankful for my provision and in turn I feel the desire to share with no expectation of return. I feel liberated, happy, and it's truly a joy one can not describe when you see the fruit of your work elevate someone else's life.

I think of it a different way. Many people think our taxes should be used to provide a basic "floor" to support the basic needs of people. E.g. shelter and food.

However, all that money flows up to the state or federal level to then get filtered back down to people at the local lavel. An ostensibly better approach is to support local charities to make the lives in you local community better. I support CSA and Second Harvest Silicon Valley for that reason.

Personally I'd prefer to be taxed less to have more money to provide to things I care about like food insecurity in my community, education, etc. I had a thought experiment that with my vote I got to attribute my tax dollars to NASA, medical research, national defense, etc. as I see fit.

Taxes already pay for social safety nets for every category you mentioned. The fundamental needs are already provided. You could try to make an argument for raising taxes to provide even more of those benefits, but don't try to say that we don't already have homeless shelters, foodbanks, welfare, and so on.

Fundamental needs being guaranteed through taxes is relying on the goodwill of others. Those paying the taxes can decide at any moment to exert political force to have the taxes eliminated or reduced.

If the people cannot afford healthcare, shelter, and other basic needs is it fair to assume that they are not medical professionals, builders, or (e.g.) farmers? If not for compensation how do you propose they obtain healthcare, shelter, or other needs without good will? After all, taxes ultimately don't guarantee fundamental needs are met; production does.

As an alternative to good will, you seem to be suggesting that the powerful members of the state force others to help, either directly (particularly in a healthcare setting) or through forceful confiscation and redistribution. While that may solve the problem of poverty (the efficacy of various redistribution schemes is not what I'm particularly interested in here) the idea that it's somehow indicative of a more enlightened society seems backwards. A society that freely and voluntarily gives seems more civil to me.

Further, your last sentence doesn't lend much support. While unfortunate circumstances may create a culture of pity, forced redistribution may create a culture of malice and hostility. It may (and, from what I have seen, does) relax any conscientious call to action with the simple excuse, "eh, the government takes care of that."

One of the fundamental problems with taxes (other than the waste, corruption and pork barrel projects) is that relative to philanthropy or investing, there is zero information provided back to the donor as to what their contribution enabled.

Investing in Tesla you can claim you are saving the world with renewable energy. With charity, likely it is clear to you as the donor that you are doing something to help the world.

With taxes, you mail your check in and nothing. There is certainly no thank you note or glimmer of recognition. But in reality, particularly if you look at the state level budgets, it's likely the impact dollar for dollar has a very high potential for helping a lot of people when its used for education, healthcare and the environment.

Perhaps the trick is, as tax donors, we have to look for the impact ourselves and mentally take credit for the impact we are having on other people's lives.

And perhaps governments need to figure out how to make taxpayer understand in personal terms how they're dollars are being used for good. Then maybe people will enjoy paying tax donations (and maybe even pay a bit more) versus actively working to avoid taxes.

Just to be clear, I agree with you, but I'm half convinced the culture came first. Charity, being on an individual basis, is quicker moving than governmental action. It fills the gaps, so to speak, and will (and should) always have a place, but the gaps of income inequality (among many other problems) are so deep and our society so incapable of moving to solve them, that we are left to rely on charity and helplessly pray to our Carnegie- or Apple- like demigods (I'm exaggerating a bit here). This problem seems to have a nasty feedback loop with the concentrating of wealth in that more wealth in fewer hands lessens the scope that those with wealth to give can see and increases the damage an actor can do (accidentally, intentionally, or through inaction).

I question I have for some people who might read this: I suspect some people slightly more libertarian than I would argue that our society should have a greater emphasis on charity vs taxes, but I have no idea how that would be workable when starting with a huge disparity. UBI with automatic triggers like the Sahm rule, maybe? I don't know. I'm not well read here.