Oh herro

[DGFone]

I'll give you that.

That's exactly my point!

If you choose to do so, you can donate all the money you want to cancer research. If you give it to the government in the form of a tax, guess where it won't go? If you want to increase cancer funding, do it yourself. Don't rely in a tax to do it.

[Regulus]

If you choose to do so, you can donate all the money you want to cancer research.

But that won't happen, and that's my point. A charity can raise a lot of money, but a tax can raise a lot more than a lot of money.

And, geez, it's not like people don't waste their money anyway.

[DGFone]

^ Not even that. It will raise taxes to raise cancer research. Where will the money actually go to: First, the government will send it to a few people who will be tasked in deciding which research group that money will go to. Those people need to be paid, so you lose a lot of money there. Then, the government will watch over the money to make sure that it is used right... Except that it will involve even more government clerks getting paid, so you lose a lot of money there as well. To put it simply, if you give government money and a task to use it for, expect at most to see only half of it to be put into actual good use.

If you want to get something done, do it yourself.

[Regulus]

^ Not even that. It will raise taxes to raise cancer research. Where will the money actually go to: First, the government will send it to a few people who will be tasked in deciding which research group that money will go to. Those people need to be paid, so you lose a lot of money there. Then, the government will watch over the money to make sure that it is used right... Except that it will involve even more government clerks getting paid, so you lose a lot of money there as well. To put it simply, if you give government money and a task to use it for, expect at most to see only half of it to be put into actual good use.

If you want to get something done, do it yourself.

Have any numbers to back that up? Last time I checked, I don't have billions of dollars to give to cancer research. Only the government does.

[DGFone]

This is where you have to get responsible. Yes, you don't have millions of dollars to give to cancer research. But last time I checked, donations are tax-deductible. You pay money to a donation, you don't have to pay that amount in taxes when they are due. So what do you do? Donate that same amount as the taxes are, because through a donation, more money will go to research and not get lost in the process of redistribution. It's the same amount of money per person, but it requires more effort on the behalf of the individual.

So if you put in that extra effort, you can make the same amount of money go farther. If you are lazy, pay your taxes, and complain that there's never enough money. Or that it's going to the wrong cause.

[Azdgari]

Great thought, although,

You may deduct a maximum of up to 50% of your adjusted gross income (AGI) (Line 36 on IRS Form 1040) for the tax year the donation was given

Woeler:

Nobody said "there is a chance the government will give it to something". That is not what this discussion is about. It is about A or B and why.

Bless your heart, you're the first one to understand my question the way I meant it! Well, maybe Fip did too. =P

[DGFone]

Yes, that's because there are some government programs that you can't exactly donate to. For example, there are no NASA donations that I am aware about. The moon landings were funded by taxes, and will continue to be funded by taxes. For cases like these, yes taxes are necessary.

But it's where you do have the option to donate instead of paying taxes where, if you actually care, you go and donate instead of paying taxes for the same cause. So for cancer research, it would be better if everyone donated said amount instead of paying a cancer tax. If you need to fund schools though, then yes, you need taxes. But before you say "we need more!", I say: "Is there a way to make more with what you already get?"

[TheLionPrince]

Fact is you don't have any numbers, you are just wildly guessing because you think you already pay too much taxes. The fact that people are not willing to get such taxes is sad, just plain sad.

Also I don't know where you get your predictions from because all of western Europe and Japan have been functioning extremely well with such laws and taxes. You will always get less money if you do it through charity.

We are one society, we should help each other. Not letting each other die because we are too selfish to miss maybe 30 dollars a month or less. Yes you need taxes to fund school. What you also need taxes for is keeping people healthy, giving people a home and be sure that your population doesn't starve.

A concept called money has overruled our morals as human beings and that is a sad and pathetic thing. It is sad that we no longer give a crap about anyone else... well we do, unless we have to pay.

And for serious, space BS is the first thing that should be cut off by taxes. These things are by far not as important as the own population of a country. The moonlanding is nothing more than a prestige object. I wonder how many people could have gotten an decent home and food to eat for that money.

Taxes for NASA and space travel pfff, we may as well throw the money in a giant bottomless pit. Oh wait, that's whats happening...

Something went horrible wrong in our moral development. Because we now much rather fund space travel than care for actual humans who need it.

it is a very, very sad thing indeed

Oh, please! At least $10 trillion has been since the War on Poverty to help those impoverished according to this source. I'm sure the Apollo 11 programs wouldn't nearly cost that much if it were to be performed again today.

Face it! The government has done more than enough to help fight the war on poverty! It's not obviously working when the poverty rate is higher than it's been in recent years, and the President still wants to press on by giving more "government assistance" to them by taxing the rich.

Not don't you get me wrong, I'm all for the government to help those in poverty, but the poor need to learn to help themselves.

[Azdgari]

While I agree with some of what you're saying Woeler, I'm compelled to say that Health Care spending is 23% of our budget (~850 billion) where defense is 19% (~700 billion) as of 2010.


Lionking, would you change your argument at all in response to several studies which indicate that social mobility in the US is actually lower than in other parts of the world? It's actually very difficult for those born into disadvantaged situations to climb out them. I also disagree with free handouts--how about programs that create opportunities for the impoverished? That's what the war on poverty is actually about, creation of programs to give opportunities to underprivelidged Americans. Welfare gets bastardized very often as "just giving free handouts and not solving the problem" while in fact (other than unemployment benefits which I think are quite important in a time like this when, it's been said, there aren't enough jobs to go around) most of the money goes to just that, trying to create opportunities.

...the poor need to learn to help themselves.

Yikes.

[FlipMode]

Not that you get me wrong, I'm all for the government to help those in poverty, but the poor need to learn to help themselves.

Forgive me, but is that not a little contradictory? And how are people with no homes, no water etc supposed to help themselves exactly anyway?
Wait, by "poor" do we mean like, Third World or just generally people less wealthy than us and can barely afford to pay gas bills etc?