From: J056600@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: Ignorance - Was Re: VOTE, BABY, VOTE!
Date: 17 Nov 92 16:11:16 GMT
Organization: Lockheed Missiles & Space Company, Inc.

In <BZS.92Nov16224552@world.std.com>, Barry Shein writes:


>>I think it's just as valid to say that if the government weren't removing
>>such a large chunk of our incomes (47%) ahead of time, by use of force,
>>then we'd have more money to contribute to private charities, and the
>>private charities wouldn't be in such distress. I bet the private charities
>>would do a better job of helping the needy than the government is doing
>>with our money, too.

>Very dramatic and psuedo-logical, however about $100B of the $1.5T
>goes to direct aid to the poor. That's about 7% (rounded up) of the
>federal budget, so 3% of your income? How many people here who make,
>say, $40K or around $770/wk, upon finding out that their salaries have
>increased $23/week would suddenly feel a philanthropic swell in their
>hearts and donate it all (most? half? any?) to charity?

You're forgetting the inherent inefficiency of the government program.  Many
government programs (particularly at the federal level) eat up 50-70% of each
tax dollar in bureaucracy!  That leaves 30-50c of every dollar for relief.
Compare that with the Red Cross or the Salvation Army, which can easily boast
an efficiency of around 85%.

So let's see here.  If I give $23 to government, about $15 will be eaten up by
administration, leaving a net of $8 for actual relief.  It isn't unusual for
charities to have 80-90% of their income go directly to relief.  So I can give
to charity only $10 and still see $8 trickle down to the intended benefici-
aries.  Let's give them $15, though.  The poor get $12 rather than $8, and I
still have an extra $8 myself.  Sounds like a win-win situation to me.

>I think most people would use most of it for selfish (not in the
>negative sense) purposes and really not give the whole matter much
>thought. $23/wk raise? Great, now I can eat out a coupla more times
>per week...

Maybe they would.  But is it your right to prevent people from using their
money as they see fit?

>We can quibble the figures, feel free, but at least re-do the plug and
>grind arithmetic for us all and let's see if it really feels
>convincing. I doubt doubling or trebling that figure would change most
>people's hearts by much.

I just did the arithmetic.  Even "mandatory charity" would be better than tax-
funded social programs--they do just as much good work for half the price.
How about this?  Let's say that $2000 of my taxes goes to entitlement programs.
What if the government *mandated* that I donate $1500, and returned the $2000
to me?  After the red tape is cut, the charities will give $1200 to the "poor"
while the government's $2000 will give $1000 at best.  Again, the poor are
the winners (they get an extra $200), and so are we (we keep an extra $500).
The only losers are the bureaucrats who are no longer empowered.  Remember that
charities are accountable for their funding.  How many people give to charities
which pay out only 40% of their receipts for relief?  Not many people would,
but they pay taxes that way just the same.  Competition between charities for
the people's money will make them try harder to squeeze every last penny out
of the red tape.  Government has no such incentive to maintain efficiency.

>That's one problem, parkinson's law, until a person is very wealthy
>they tend to increase their lifestyle standards to match their
>salaries. Particularly if they think the next fellow is doing the
>same.

Parkinson's Law?  I've always heard it called "keeping up with the Joneses."
That's been around for a long, long time.  So what's the point?

>One advantage of the current system is that at least everyone should
>feel like they're giving as much (proportionately) as the next fellow
>(obviously not every fellow, but most of their co-workers etc.)

Why is that an advantage?  It may be "morally correct" to do so, but should it
be a *requirement* or *mandated by law*?  Doing the "right thing" for the wrong
reasons is still no virtue.

>That is why Churches and Mosques have historically tithed people based
>on their salary, so everyone knew everyone else was giving their fair
>share. It's important to people.

It's a good thing that Congresscritters don't run churches, or else the tithe
would be progressive.

They would think churches are a bunch of rich Republicans:  how else could
they explain the "flat tax" nature of the tithe?

>It also assumes we could cut that figure back to zero, I doubt that
>also.

It would reduce the federal government's share of the social engineering
business back to zero.  It just doesn't work.  There is just too much overhead
involved with government programs.  It's really that simple.

I still think we should explore the idea of replacing government-administered
social programs with mandatory charity.  Not that I like the *mandatory*
aspect of it, but it's still a vast improvement over a government-run system.


Tim Irvin
*****************************************************************************
"Dammit, Jim!  I'm a programmer, not a doctor!"