Reply
Mon 19 Apr, 2004 12:53 am
Most americans agree that not enough is done to help those struggling in America.
However conservatives insist that the govt. is too inefficent to do it properly. Some like Dan Ewert feel that...
"Under the current system, my money is involuntarily taken away from me and used to fund programs that are unresponsive, ineffective, and eye-poppingly inefficient. Scant little of what I put into the system actually makes it to the people who need it. Since modern welfare is run by the government, then it's a bureaucratic monopolistic colossus that faces no competition, no threat of being dissolved, and is guaranteed an almost unlimited supply of income whenever it needs it. Under those conditions, the majority of the money it receives is eaten up in administrative overhead. I'd far prefer to take that same money and give it to organizations that will use it wisely and efficiently. "
If this is the case, here's my proposal...
While filing their taxes, individuals can indicate that they would like to donate up to 10% of their total tax dues to one of several nationally recognized charities listed and described instead of giving this money to the IRS. No individual can donate more than $5000 to any particular charity.
To qualify, the nonprofit organization...
1. Must not be affiliated with any political group or intentionally discriminate against any race, religion, or ethnic group.
2. Must be nationally based with several branches, to ensure that the money goes to the areas that need it most.
3. Must either aid the sick, the poor, the unemployed (ie job training), the environment, disaster relief programs, civil service agencies (such as volunteer firemen), apprenticeship programs, orphanages, day care centers, education facilities, conduct medical research, provide international aid, provide information and help on health and safety concerns, provide free counseling, or fund development projects.
4. Must keep through and open accounts so that the media, the government and individual donators can clearly see where the money is going and how it's being spent.
5. Must not give donors any awards or gifts in return for their donations.
6. Must spend less than 5% of their budget on bueracratic costs.
Could this idea work? What needs to be added to it? What am I missing or not considering?
If this debate reaches a resolution largely in favor of such a proposal, I intend to refine this idea, work out all the kinks and I fully intend to type it up into a letter and mail a copy to each senator and congressmen.
I think the question of whether or not charities are truly more effective is a valid one with many arguments from both sides.
I personally believe that they could be...
Charities will be competing with each other to do the most good for the cheapest cost. They'll be trying lots of new methods and ideas and find the ones that work the best. They'll address every aspect of society in need of reform. Everyone comes out a winner as a result.
With this plan, you're given the option to decide how a portion of your tax money should be spent. You can spend it to help the poor, fund medical research, train people to work, educate kids, improve the environment, faith based initiatives that don't discriminate and don't spend too much on bueracratic costs or just about any other area you're interested in.
There is something inherently democratic about the notion of letting the tax payers decide how a portion of their taxes will be spent. And mixing free market capitalism into charities will do a world of good. The reason capitalism trumped socialism is because of all the experimentation that occurs. Corporations will try many many ideas and the most successful and revolutionary ones blossom. The government on the other hand often suffers from tunnel vision and as a result rarely tries revolutionary new methods that could end up doing a lot of good.
For example, one method that is proving to be extremely successful in reforming trobuled teens is positively reinforcing not continueing their negative habits. This not only seems to work extremely well in the short term but is changing people's lives forever and making drug addicts into extremely productive individuals. The power of positive reinforcement is grossly underestimated. Yet the government doesn't really give a lot of funding to these products simply because it takes a lot of money to gain access to and present to senators data on successful projects that they can fund. But with a system like the one mentioned above, people can fund these very successful endeavors themselves and have them gain in prominence.
Privatize social security: yes
Privatize welfare: resounding no
Please explain your reasoning.
Craven, the many positive aspects of such a law are explained here...
http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=656281#656281
Please read the above link.
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 some of the foreign 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.
Centroles wrote:Please explain your reasoning.
Social security can be an investment that makes sense for privatization. Welfare is not.
I think you misinterpret what I am advocating.
It's outlined in my first post.
Phase out welfare with charities.
Indeed, "privatizing welfare" is a euphemism for eliminating it.
Look, there are plenty of third world nations that work with the program you favor. I've lived in several and it is not a pretty picture. Disabled people get to beg on the streets and such.
Privatizing welfare is one of the more absurd and naive ideas to come along the pike.
Exactly what third world country are you referring to.
I'm not talking about elminating welfare. I am talking about increasing funding to private charities who do this job more efficently through the proposal mentioned above.
As the charities take on the burdens that welfare currently does, we can slowly cut back and maybe someday phase it out only to be reinstated if the charities ever fail to do their job.
Re: Privatizing Welfare: Could it work?
Centroles wrote:While filing their taxes, individuals can indicate that they would like to donate up to 10% of their total tax dues to one of several nationally recognized charities listed and described instead of giving this money to the IRS. No individual can donate more than $5000 to any particular charity.
I think your numbers here might need some further research. As an example - someone earning $80,000/year would likely have an adjusted gross income in the $60,000-$65,000 range with a tax burden in the $16,000 range. A limitation of 10% makes their maximum charitable contribution around $1,600 which isn't much of an overall incentive.
$80,000 a year isn't an enorumous amount but it's well above average.
Quote:
To qualify, the nonprofit organization...
1. Must not be affiliated with any political group or intentionally discriminate against any race, religion, or ethnic group.
2. Must be nationally based with several branches, to ensure that the money goes to the areas that need it most.
3. Must either aid the sick, the poor, the unemployed (ie job training), the environment, disaster relief programs, civil service agencies (such as volunteer firemen), apprenticeship programs, orphanages, day care centers, education facilities, conduct medical research, provide international aid, provide information and help on health and safety concerns, provide free counseling, or fund development projects.
I'd think you'd need to narrow this list. It'd be hard sell to say that you wish to replace government sponsored welfare by creating additional funding for a fire dept or a Medical Research facility. I'd think you'd have to limit it to agencies that provide traditional welfare services.
But I think Carven's point is valid too. You'd never pass legislation that totally eliminates traditional welfare. The welfare check is seen as an inherently governmental function and probably rightly so. Some of the ancillary social programs could be privatized though. Things like job training, day care services, etc.. could be done by private agencies. The monthly check for living expenses would probably have to remain as a government check.
Thanks for the well thought out points fishin
I'll reconsider the finances.
I'm not proposing eliminating welfare. I'm proposing an alternative that I think could slowly allow us to scale it back.
Here's another interesting perspective...
Portal Star wrote:
I do think government should regulate social care - the local government. The federal government holds responsibility to no one, and they are not subject to running out of money if they fail (unlike private ownership.) They don't have to do well, they only have to look good to please the voters. Looking good and doing well are two separate things. In a category as large as the U.S. you don't know what they are doing with your money, and they keep getting paid for their organizations whether they do a good job or not. Organizations that keep getting money get larger and larger - that is the nature of organizations. The government isn't good at getting rid of organizations that are no longer needed or are non-functional because it looks better for politicians to create things than it does for them to destroy them. This means the money of the people is wasted and the people aren't helped in the way they need to be. (see Thomas Chalmers.)
On a local level, you can see the difference dedication to social programs makes - somewhat in a state and even more within a city. When a city takes control of social care it becomes a matter of public responsibility and pride (see the low countries of NE Europe in the 16th, 17th centuries.)
The federal government exists for two resons: war/defense and to unite the states under common symbol/authority. It was not created to be involved in domestic trifles such as business and social programs. It is supposed to solve disputes between the states, and the president has power of persuasion and veto. The federal government taxes way too much so that the states can't tax what they need to to support their laws/programs, then the federal government gives grants to the states for complying with what (the federal government) wants.
Tax laws are a game politicians play to try to get votes from certain voting blocs (note the new "obesity surgery" tax discount.)
Centroles wrote:Exactly what third world country are you referring to.
I've lived in many. But Brazil is the one I know the best.
Quote:I'm not talking about elminating welfare. I am talking about increasing funding to private charities who do this job more efficently through the proposal mentioned above.
And I'm saying that is tantamount to eliminating welfare. In any nation without welfare the citizenry has the option to donate to private charity.
While not a part of taxes as in your example it is connected to taxes in that it's a deduction.
What happens when the government does not guarantee it is usually that it doesn't exist.
And when it doesn't exist it means all the blind, the lame all the handicapped are in the streets begging.
Libertarians have a naive notion that the charitable human spirit can take care of them. But that has yet to
ever be the case in history.
But this proposal only scales back welfare if and when charities take over more and more of it's roles.
And the charities reicive more funding precisely because it is free to do so (as it would be in this proposal).
Competion between charities ensures that only the most effective programs survive.
Competition is a concept for survival of the fittest. Welfare is taking care of the least fit so that they can survive at all.
This is why welfare is not the best area for privatizing. It's not a competitive field, it's charity. welfare, at the peak of it's competition would be a teat for all humanity. That's the downside to any welfare system as it is.
This is why competition provides little benefit to welfare, it's not a competitive market.
I support many kinds of privatization. Welfare is certainly not one of them.
"Under the current system, my money is involuntarily taken away from me and used to fund programs that are unresponsive, ineffective, and eye-poppingly inefficient. Scant little of what I put into the system actually makes it to the people who need it. Since modern welfare is run by the government, then it's a bureaucratic monopolistic colossus that faces no competition, no threat of being dissolved, and is guaranteed an almost unlimited supply of income whenever it needs it. Under those conditions, the majority of the money it receives is eaten up in administrative overhead. I'd far prefer to take that same money and give it to organizations that will use it wisely and efficiently. "
Charity can be competitive Craven.
Under my proposal, the charities will have open books. The media can look over them and the effectiveness of the charities and present this information to the press.
The charities that have the most success in doing the most, reforming people the most, providing services for the most, for the cheapest cost will be highlighted by the media and will thus experience a surge in funding.
With welfare, ineffective programs continue to be funded and eat up critical resources. New ideas are rarely tried as it's so hard to get approval to do so.
This isn't the best way to do the most good.
But with my proposal, effective programs will outgrow ineffective one.
Many charities ensure that many programs will be tried.
I'm not advocating that welfare be eliminated.
I am merely stating that this system would do a lot of good.
And someday as result, the number of people that welfare would have to cover would dimish greatly.
"A limitation of 10% makes their maximum charitable contribution around $1,600 which isn't much of an overall incentive."
The US has over 250 million people. Even an average of $500 per person going to charity would equate to $125 billion dollars annually.
That should more than meet the needs of charities and would be more than enough to make them really competitive.
Fishin, I never meant this proposal soley to reduce welfare. I guess the choice of title was in poor judgment and I have thus edited it.
I think that it will allow us to scale back govt. spending on just about everything except for defence.
But only as the needs for these programs decline as a result of this proposal.
I am by no means advocating that we cut welfare etc and hope that these charities will pick up the slack.
I'm saying that any slack they pick up can be used to cut govt. spending and pay off the defecit.
Moved back to politics.
Who put this in the debate room?
I thought it fits better in debate. Since this a very important debate to have
There is not a profit to made with charity so privatizing welfare would never work or else there never would have been a need for welfare in the first place.
If people look for perfection in anything on earth they are not going to find it, but the welfare and human services has worked better than anything before.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace