Wednesday, April 07, 2004

A friend said recently

"I would be willing to pay higher taxes for a better environment and (I can't remember this part it was either more social welfare or lower health care costs)."

I would not be willing to pay more tax money for more social welfare. The government is bad with money. It is more efficient for me to give my money to local charities instead of giving the money to the federal government and having three different organizations take a bite of the money on the way back down to the city level (The federal government uses some of the money to pay operating costs, the State uses some of the money to pay operating costs, and the County then will use some of the money to pay operating costs. What is left is what is given out to the people who actually need it).
Why not just give the money straight to the charity in the first place? More money will get where it needs to be.

But I also believe that social responsibility is important, and I would like to see an attempt in trying to teach some of that in schools, and see if the amount donated to charities is increased by making children aware of social needs.
I would like to also promote social awareness buy allowing non-profit groups to promote their cause cheaper (or at no cost) and more often.

If more people donated to local charities, the system would be much more efficient and adaptable. Also, taxes could then be reduced because there is less need for them, and the government could be smaller. Social responsibility is important but should be not enforced by the government. Although, I do believe it can be (and should be) encouraged by the government. For example, if you pay a certain amount of you money to local charities you get a major tax break (and if you don't give any money to local chararites you could get taxed out of you ass and if you don’t the government would collect the money and disburse it through private non-profit groups). This would make government smaller, and make the entire social welfare system more efficient (which would mean there would be more money to help the people that need it)


No comments: