If you assume the money that the federal government takes out of your paycheck at gunpoint — which it essentially is as they have the guns and the police power to incarcerate you if you object — is a voluntary donation, I’d bet a dollar that half, if not a majority, of the money is eaten up in administrative costs before it reaches the beneficiary. Even a bad legitimate private charity has lower administrative costs than the federal government.

Who’s to say that a particular charity is worth supporting? If it is up to the federal government to decide, the money will go to whoever had the better lobbyists and/or is in line with the philosophical ideas of the Congressional leadership. As opposed to individuals making voluntary donations to those charities that the individuals decide for themselves are worthy of supporting and that produce results.

They DO give it to Space Nazi’s…

I think they are call Scientolo…somethings…

I see a whole lot more waste with the government welfare/charity system then I have with any private charity I have dealt with.

Mmkay. Have you people ever DEALT with charity? Let me tell you something about freaking charity: it’s always begging for money. Al. Ways. In fact they waste perfectly good money that they could be using to help people, BEGGING FOR MORE MONEY.

So the government should take over. They never want money, and they never waste it.

Besides, why should I be able to choose where my own money goes?

http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2005/11/generosity_inde.html

Mmkay. Have you people ever DEALT with charity? Let me tell you something about freaking charity: it’s always begging for money. Al. Ways. In fact they waste perfectly good money that they could be using to help people, BEGGING FOR MORE MONEY.

If conservatives and libertarians really believe charity is the answer, and if you really are more well-off than liberals, to the degree you resent taxation because you think it disproportionately affects you–why aren’t YOU giving more to charity?

I don’t mean charities that preserve rich people’s party clothes to stick into a museum, either–I mean charities that actually help poor people.

By the way, the whole premise that “the rich” get taxed more when income taxes are raised? That, my friends, is a MYTH. Income taxes ONLY affect income. Your degree of wealth is only slightly affected by your income level. It is more strongly determined by your net worth. Net worth by definition is money that is NOT moving around, hence money NOT subject to income tax.

By the way? Rich people, even rich liberals, DO contribute to charity. The problem is that charity doesn’t take care of all the need out there. It is as often as not run by petty individuals with petty beliefs about who is and is not worthy of help. At least the government is forbidden from discriminating against people. You can’t say the same of a church.

So… I think I know where I would rather my tax dollars went.

Then I saw this in the latest Fortune and started wondering more:

http://money.cnn.com/2008/10/24/magazines/fortune/tully_henrys.fortune/index.htm

Does the Obama tax increase over $250K include any revenues from small businesses, or just the income small business owners take home from that business? And if the former, who the heck thought *that* was a good idea?!?