Please read this tax reform idea. It WILL help this country.

I'm just curious as to what a year's worth of welfare costs you guys in tax dollars.

I'm also curious as to what a year (or more) at war costs you guys in tax dollars.

If anyone finds these numbers out I would like to hear about it.

Quotes from another forum where I asked this:

"First, Charitible donations are already tax deudctable. I'd rather keep the system the way it is then to allow the IRs to add more lines to my form. Also the added cost of overhead to implement and disburse the money probally isn't worth the savings."

THAT'S MISLEADING. Currently, you don't have to pay taxes on charitable donations. That's all being tax deductable means. Yet you still have to fork over 70 cents for every dollar that you wish to donate to charity. This is why so few people take advantage of this.

"Secondly, Welfare has already gone through one reformation and will probally undergo another in the future. To receive federal funding for welfare, states must show that they have work requirements and time limits on how long someone can stay on welfare. The rolls have been dropping since the implementation of Welfare reform."

The problem is endemic. The govt. is so slow to react to needs and changes, so set in its rules and caps and regulations that it essentially suffers from tunnel vision. As my second post clearly explains, more regulations aren't neccesarily a good thing. They tend to do as much harm as good. I would prefer a diverse system where many people are trying many different things at the same time over the current welfare system anyday of the week.

"Depending on which state tou live in you have a limited amount of time to sit on welfare and in a few state, Maryland is one, you are not given cash but a card which can only be used for certain purchases. Nobody in MD is buying cigarettes and beer with their Independance cards. Although there is a black market for stamps and cards, the going rate is $.50 to a dollar. People who are truly in need are not selling their stamps."

This isn't the reason I back welfare reform. I think it has a tendency to discourage people from working too. And I think it's too bueracratic and tries to do sooo much but with only one or two methods that it simply can't be effective. Charities try many many different things. The effective charities will be the ones that get more publicity and more donations.

"Third, before calling a social program dead and trying to eliminate it, do a study to see who it helps, how it helps and how it can be made to run better with less money. There are people out there who are turly in need and their are frauds. Let's root out the frauds and help those who need it. "

I NEVER ONCE PROPOSED DOING AWAY WITH WELFARE. All I am proposing is that we reform the tax laws so that people can give money to charities than the government. It is my sincere belief that this would actually get people off of welfare. If it proves effective and charities do a good job of caring for the poor, only once we are convinced that charities can and will pick up the slack, can we consider easing people off welfare and onto charities.

"And finally. Treu story time. I know someone who opted to collect a check as opposed to working. Why? Because she had three kids and the costs of daycare, school transportation, and her own living expenses could not be met with a minimum wage job. So she opted to collect the money and find something that pays better. She is looking, but she's rather take the free money an dbe able to do what she has to for her kids, then to work at a fast food joint and not be able to make sure her children are ok."

This is exactly the kinds of situations I am talking about. There are some charities that will provide her with daycare. Some that will provide her with transportation. Some that will give her food, clothes and other basic neccesities, some that will give shelter. As it currently is, the government tries to do too much. And they try to do most of it givng money to them, but only as long as they don't start making above a certain amount. She can thus either opt to try and use that money to take care of day care, transportation, food, clothes and everything else so that she can work a job. But once she starts making above a certain amount (probably as soon as she starts working full time), the money stops flowing and she'll be working long and hard to pay for all that stuff out of pocket and barely make ends meet, or she could just keep recieving her welfare checks and stay at home. But if charities took care of these needs, she could go out and get a job. She could work hard, become a manager, get a hefty raise and eventually not need help from charities.

Now its true that a few states provide daycare etc. But many don't. And the simple fact is, there are so many needs that it's unrealistic to expect one organization (one that's so slow to adapt) to oversee all of them. And all these regulations and restrictions and caps do as much harm as good.

I NEVER ONCE THOUGHT OF WELFARE RECIPIENTS AS LEECHES. I am certain that no one would opt to stay on welfare over having a steady job and being able to buy the stuff they want, not just the bare essentials. A few radical conservatives might. But most don't think like that. Many simply feel that charities are more efficent.

"I have yet another proposal for our country as well to help partially fix the welfare problem. Rather than handing out money for food, the government has already discovered that food stamps effectively limit the spending, for the most part, to food items. So why haven't they discovered that the bulk of money for the bills and medicine has ended up the same way? They should adopt "medicine stamps" and "bill stamps" for people on welfare - and send out little or no "hard cash" at all. Then how many satellite dishes do you think people would be buying with their welfare check? How many more people do you think would start making ends meet rather than have three more kids for a fatter check? "

You won't find accurate numbers for either of those two exact categories in the Federal budget. The cost of war is obviously hidden in the entire DoD budget and the total cost of welfare programs are mixed into several different agency budgets.

In very general terms the DoD consumed 17.8% ($380 billion) of the total Federal budget and Social Programs consumed 65.7% ($1.4 Trillion). For a comparative shift you could compare those with the 2001 budget (which would be pre-war) where Defense used 16.6% annd Social Programs used 64.2% or go back even farther to 1985 where the DoD used 26.7% and Social Programs used 49.9%.

Thanks fishin'.

I dig the fact that you're always thinkin'.

I won't be posting on a2k for a long while. But please keep this thread going as I would love to hear all the concerns/suggestions you have for this reform.

Once I get the kinks worked out, I will send a copy with this proposal to all the governors, senators and congressmen and hope something happens.

Stopping by to quickly check up on any new suggestions for improvement.

bump, no one has any more suggestions on this idea?

is it realistic?

Any attempt to reform the tax structure in America runs up against the inconvenient fact that the tax law is one of the few ways that the government can use to reward desirable behaviors. Want people to buy houses? Give them a tax break on their mortgages. Want people to invest in solar energy? Give them a tax break on installing solar panels in their homes. Want people to send their kids to college? Give them a tax break on tuition and educational loans. Want people to produce mohair? Give them a tax break on mohair production. And the list goes on . . . and on . . . and on.

I'm not saying you have a bad idea, Centroles. It's just that the government will not forego a portion of its tax revenues as long as it is unwilling to forego its desire to control individual behavior by means of the tax code.

But this idea plays into both parties joe.

It plays into the democrats desire to help the underprivalaged more.

It plays into the republican desire to phase out welfare and replace it with charities as they are more efficent.

I really amn't interested in hearing whether or not the law could pass. I think with hard work, it can.

I am interesting in hearing if you think this law could work and would help improve society.

As posted and better explained here... http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=656247#656247

Education is essential to helping the people of the third world help themselves.

As pointed out in the thread, there are many able bodied people in poor countries able to help themselves, build irrigation systems, sanitize the streets etc.

They unfortunatley recieve no guidance as to how to do this and why.

It's true that soem of the governments are corrupt. We could just as easily give the money to the hundreds of charities out there that are efficent and effective in educating people and helping them help themselves.

We don't though. Because the money we give in foreign aid isn't out of the goodness of our hearts. It's done for political gain. It's done so that the country lets us export more oil from them or lets us open up diamond mines in them.

We give money to leaders that we know spend it on themselves to build private palaces (under the name foreign aid) strictly because we want something from them in return.

This philosophy needs to change.

This is another reason that I favor the tax reform idea that lets tax payers decide how thier moeny is spent by giving it to charities instead here.

bump

Shouldn't you be studying? Seriously?

summer break.

bump,

and for the sake of this debate

let's stick to a discussion of the merits of this rather than the plausibility.

it would work if we didn't have a debt to pay off
obviously you are very intelligent, and have put a lot of effort into solving the problem of government waste. i do have a couple of problems with it though. first, it is apparently a very complicated plan since it took you pages and pages to explain it. imagine how difficult it would be to implement if it doesn't even sound simple to begin with. second, our government has amassed untold amounts of debt that have to be paid for. if we started diverting money, there is no chance of retiring that debt. third, even though government is wasteful and should be made accountable for everything that they spend, the money that is spent on overhead and salaries still goes right back into the economy. money is transitory. fourth, even though i believe that this country should remain a predominantly christian nation, we still must respect the right of other people to worship the way they see fit. thus, i think church and state should remain completely separate and our tax dollars should go to the government to be used for the benefit of everyone. sending money to faith based organizations that will only help certain groups of people is wrong.

Re: Please read this tax reform idea. It WILL help this coun


Thus any faith based organization that discriminates based on faith wouldn't qualify.

But faith based organizations that don't discriminate like the salvation army would qualify.

Most of our tax code is a lot more complicated than this. I don't think this would be that hard to implement.

I think that if this works, we will be able to cut a lot of the govt's current spending and thus get this money back.

Any money that's given to these charities would still go to the economy, since like you noted, money is transitinary.

heres a simpler idea
the real problem with giving money to faith based charities is that there is usually a catch to it when they are handing it out. this is a true story. many years ago, during lunch period, my friends told me that there was a place down the street giving away free hot dogs. you could see smoke coming from my shoes. when i got there, it took me 5 minutes to eat the hot dog and 20 minutes to sing the church hymns. the real question is would it be fair to make a muzlim walk into a christian church to ask for help or would we want to walk into a muzlim mosque to ask for help. i know i wouldn't in a million years
lets simplify this. instead of buying humongous suvs, why don't we start buying some more fuel efficient vehicles. now, the 50 to 75 dollars a month that we save, can go to the faith based charities of your choice, instead of saudi arabia. with the population continually increasing, the middle east will not even see a drop in revenue, and our faith based charities will be happy as well. better yet, if you can ride to the store on your bike without getting run over, then you might even save us money on health care over the next 50 years. :wink:

Like I said, only faith based organization that don't have any catches for this aid, ones like the Salvation Army, would qualify.

Might be an interesting cause to take up in 2008, with change being the word of the day and all.