so private organizations can decide who is worthy of assistance.
Or private individuals, too, right? Taxes are supposed to be a check/measure on commerce. Are you saying you want to change that an lump in non-commercial operations in that too? Wouldn’t the result be that the only organizations in operation after that policy change would be private-moneymaking businesses? That sounds like a race to a cyberpunk dystopian future.
I want the government to collect taxes that will be more likely to be distributed fairly to everyone instead of non-profits deciding who is worthy.
We wouldn’t need cancer charities if the government actually took care of healthcare. We wouldn’t need to donate to food banks if the government collected taxes that could be distributed to food banks with a lower overhead than non-profits.
Charities are the stop gap for defunding the government, but are also private gatekeepers that also increase public disintereat in the government by letting them focus on only what impacts them or someone they know directly.
Chairities could still exiat, but instead of being tax deductions they would get the leftovers after taxes are collected to fund public services. Why should the government lose out on the 20%+ tax bracket funds from wealthy people who just want to shuffle their money between each other’s charities that pay their boards and employees hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars to collect donations and distribute them when the government is already set up to do that?
When a rich jackoff donates a million dollars to save 200k+ on taxes, that is taxes the government could have collected instead.
We wouldn’t need cancer charities if the government actually took care of healthcare.
This must be why Europe doesn’t have cancer, right? Hang on, they do have cancer still even with funding of public healthcare. Cancer charities fund more than just treatment. Millions of dollars of cancer research is generated through charitable donations.
Charities are the stop gap for defunding the government, but are also private gatekeepers that also increase public disintereat in the government by letting them focus on only what impacts them or someone they know directly.
That is an incredibly myopic view of charities. So you Dad died of some rate form of Parkinson’s and you want to donate to fight the disease and help others? That’ll be 33% tax on your donations to the government, thanks.
Chairities could still exiat, but instead of being tax deductions they would get the leftovers after taxes are collected to fund public services.
You think the current government would fund Planned Parenthood with tax money? How about drug treatment programs? Have you seen who is in government and these are the exact programs they’re cutting leaving charity to fill the gap.
When a rich jackoff donates a million dollars to save 200k+ on taxes, that is taxes the government could have collected instead.
The people with the level of wealth you’re talking about aren’t paying high levels of income tax anyway that you’re looking to tax. Yes, charitable donations is one way they get around it, but its not the only one. Taxing charitable donations wouldn’t recover the money in taxes, it would just make those rich people horde assets and get loans on their assets to live on tax free.
This must be why Europe doesn’t have cancer, right? Hang on, they do have cancer still even with funding of public healthcare. Cancer charities fund more than just treatment. Millions of dollars of cancer research is generated through charitable donations.
No, that is why the governments takes care of people with cancer.
I didn’t bother to read the rest with such a disingenuous opening.
I didn’t bother to read the rest with such a disingenuous opening.
Well, thats very on brand for you, I suppose. You took one piece of one point of mine and built your prior post around it instead of responding to the whole post with a more complete argument. Enjoy your bubble, I guess. There’s nothing in there to challenge your position. I suppose that must be very comfortable for you.
You’ve got your statements sewn up tight with your blinders on ignoring lots of good work that charities do because that doesn’t support your narrative.
No, you responded by putting words in my mouth and then I clarified. You followed up with blatantly miscontruing what I said in the clarification, which is consistent with your first post.
Go ahead and get the last word in. I’m sure you will make something up and proclaim you won.
No, you responded by putting words in my mouth and then I clarified. You followed up with blatantly miscontruing what I said in the clarification, which is consistent with your first post.
Your clarification was equally suspect or incomplete. I tried to expand your incomplete definition to point out that not only to charitable organizations exist that perform work outside the basics of the first level of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs and that government should not be the only arbiter of which causes should receive funding which is what you’re proposing. You ignore that and refocused on basic healthcare treatment, which is just a fraction of what charitable donations go to, yes beyond just cancer treatment, which was your argument.
Go ahead and get the last word in. I’m sure you will make something up and proclaim you won.
How do you know I didn’t already do what you’re accusing me of? You stop reading posts the first moment when you find something upsetting to you.
Or private individuals, too, right? Taxes are supposed to be a check/measure on commerce. Are you saying you want to change that an lump in non-commercial operations in that too? Wouldn’t the result be that the only organizations in operation after that policy change would be private-moneymaking businesses? That sounds like a race to a cyberpunk dystopian future.
I want the government to collect taxes that will be more likely to be distributed fairly to everyone instead of non-profits deciding who is worthy.
We wouldn’t need cancer charities if the government actually took care of healthcare. We wouldn’t need to donate to food banks if the government collected taxes that could be distributed to food banks with a lower overhead than non-profits.
Charities are the stop gap for defunding the government, but are also private gatekeepers that also increase public disintereat in the government by letting them focus on only what impacts them or someone they know directly.
Chairities could still exiat, but instead of being tax deductions they would get the leftovers after taxes are collected to fund public services. Why should the government lose out on the 20%+ tax bracket funds from wealthy people who just want to shuffle their money between each other’s charities that pay their boards and employees hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars to collect donations and distribute them when the government is already set up to do that?
When a rich jackoff donates a million dollars to save 200k+ on taxes, that is taxes the government could have collected instead.
This must be why Europe doesn’t have cancer, right? Hang on, they do have cancer still even with funding of public healthcare. Cancer charities fund more than just treatment. Millions of dollars of cancer research is generated through charitable donations.
That is an incredibly myopic view of charities. So you Dad died of some rate form of Parkinson’s and you want to donate to fight the disease and help others? That’ll be 33% tax on your donations to the government, thanks.
You think the current government would fund Planned Parenthood with tax money? How about drug treatment programs? Have you seen who is in government and these are the exact programs they’re cutting leaving charity to fill the gap.
The people with the level of wealth you’re talking about aren’t paying high levels of income tax anyway that you’re looking to tax. Yes, charitable donations is one way they get around it, but its not the only one. Taxing charitable donations wouldn’t recover the money in taxes, it would just make those rich people horde assets and get loans on their assets to live on tax free.
No, that is why the governments takes care of people with cancer.
I didn’t bother to read the rest with such a disingenuous opening.
Well, thats very on brand for you, I suppose. You took one piece of one point of mine and built your prior post around it instead of responding to the whole post with a more complete argument. Enjoy your bubble, I guess. There’s nothing in there to challenge your position. I suppose that must be very comfortable for you.
You’ve got your statements sewn up tight with your blinders on ignoring lots of good work that charities do because that doesn’t support your narrative.
Have a great day!
No, you responded by putting words in my mouth and then I clarified. You followed up with blatantly miscontruing what I said in the clarification, which is consistent with your first post.
Go ahead and get the last word in. I’m sure you will make something up and proclaim you won.
Your clarification was equally suspect or incomplete. I tried to expand your incomplete definition to point out that not only to charitable organizations exist that perform work outside the basics of the first level of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs and that government should not be the only arbiter of which causes should receive funding which is what you’re proposing. You ignore that and refocused on basic healthcare treatment, which is just a fraction of what charitable donations go to, yes beyond just cancer treatment, which was your argument.
How do you know I didn’t already do what you’re accusing me of? You stop reading posts the first moment when you find something upsetting to you.
Guys, guys. You’re arguing with strangers on the Internet. You both look like idiots.