From: rich@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Rich Schwartzman)
Subject: Re: Is Private Charity That Effective? (was Re: "New Right" Libertarians?)
Organization: Sometimes
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 19:00:55 GMT

In article <1993Jan11.173746.4280@s1.gov> lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
}In article <1is1f4INNkgg@transfer.stratus.com> jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com writes:
}>In article <1993Jan11.092637.7245@microsoft.com> leecr@microsoft.com  
}>(Lee Crocker) writes:
}:  Food, shelter, medicine, all the basic necessities of life are the
}:  products of work.  There is no evidenc that private charities can't
}:  take care of those unable to work--indeed there is ample evidence  
}>that
}:  they do so much better than governments do.  
}
}>A number of libertarian posters keep saying this.  Can somebody
}>provide some of this "ample evidence."  
}
}	I suspect that they probably can't. If you have seen some of
}the scandals involving some private charities in recent years, it is
}evident that some charity executives and administrators are as big as
}they come in being money hogs.

If you're referring to Aramony of the United Way, yes, there was a
controversy over his annual compensation, reported to be more than $400,000
per year.  However, there was no proof of any wrong doing.

Further, unless laws have changed, private charities are still required to
have 80% of their income go directly to those in need of the charitable
service.  There is no such requirement for government run charities.  In
fact, a CATO study has shown that for every dollar the government takes in
through taxes for charitable purposes, 76% gets chewed up by the
bureaucracy and only 26% goes to those in need.


}
}	Furthermore, if private charity was so effective in taking
}care of the down-and-out, then I'm sure that private charitable
}organizations would have put government welfare agencies out of
}business years ago. And FDR would never have had to come up with
}Social Security (every American's favorite welfare program) if private
}charity had been so super-effective in the Great Depression.
}
}	After all, where's the law stopping them?
}
Tax laws, of course.  The more money the goverment takes out of your pocket, the
less you have to spend or donate.

As far as the depression is concerned, if gov't hadn't prevented interest
rates from rising there would have been less speculation in the stock
market, thus mitigating the crash.

}	And there is a joker in the deck that many non-US citizens
}will no doubt find amusing. While just about anyone or anything that
}receives a direct subsidy often gets suspected of some serious moral
}defect, everybody _loves_ tax breaks, which are an indirect subsidy.
}In other words, direct subsidy bad, indirect subsidy good. Here in
}America, one can get a tax deduction for a charitable contribution.
}Thus, private charities get an indirect subsidy. So one either has
}full public subsidy (welfare, Social Security, etc.) or a partial
}subsidy ("private" charity).
}
}	I would also like to ask how many of those who give to various
}charities would be equally generous if there was no tax break for such
}giving.
}
}-- 
}/Loren Petrich, the Master Blaster
}/lip@s1.gov

Tax deductions, including those for charitable contributions, have been
decreasing.  And even with close to 50% of all income going to taxes (all
taxes for every level of gov't), the American public still donates about
$90 billion every year.  


-- 
   ---------------------------------------------
  | Richard B. Schwartzman, RBS Communications  |
  |  Media Coordinator, DE. Libertarian Party   |
  |         rich@genie.slhs.udel.edu            |
  |              (302) 455-0354                 |
   ---------------------------------------------

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.activism