But let me ask you, if taxes were cut by 75%, what percentage of that money do you think would end up getting donated to charity? 2%?
But I'm curious what part of my own sweat and labor I'm not entitled to?
If you want to be a "taxes are theft" person that's fine. But the context of this was charitable giving and you are now completely dropping the original claim that taxes prevent charity.
Privilege comes with responsibility toward others... spend some time with the 99% to gain perspective.
https://www.gatesfoundation.org/goalkeepers/report/2019-repo...
The key words in your comment..that strikes a chord..is “no expectation of return”. It’s a good axiom to follow for everything in life.
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.
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."
So therefore, those with huge amounts of wealth can use charity as a vehicle to purchase such merits/PR wins.
It is all self satisfaction and helping others.
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.
Since its a completely personal thing - it can be done regardless of whether tax payments are by the government coerced or not.
> 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.
Great point. Many developed countries (Australia?) does provide you information on where your taxes were spent.
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.
google search that came up...anyone can search on their own.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/oct/06/spirit...
[..] The persistence of eugenic ideas can been seen in debates about poverty. From the 1960s concept of the “culture of poverty” to David Cameron’s “troubled families” programme, postwar social policy has remained shackled to ideas incubated within the eugenic movement. It can be seen, too, in the population control movement – the belief that social problems in Africa or Asia are the products of overbreeding. Forced sterilisation may no longer be policy in the west, but western governments and NGOs have pressured countries such as India to sterilise tens of millions of its citizens. [..]
When individuals make reproductive decisions on their own and based upon their ability to raise their families on their own, it’s called ‘family planning’
When other people and the state make reproductive choices on your behalf and for ‘collective welfare’, it’s called ‘eugenics’.
Tax dollars going for collective welfare are always laced with agendas. When will we learn and how far back do we have to go to know that there is no such thing as free currency without strings attached.
We must be free...To make decisions for us..and on our own.