Supererogatory act

It seems like there is a middle ground -- there are plenty of "teach a man to fish" organizations that are woefully underfunded. There are all kinds of organizations that provide the basics necessary before a man can possibly learn to fish -- food, shelter, basic health care -- that are woefully underfunded. The money we are talking about can go to those.

The only reason I can think of NOT to give money to those organizations is that it continues to let the government think it can get away with shifting the financial burden to individual donors, which is a trend I heartily disagree with.

0 Replies

...another reason not to is their relative effectiveness, but the organizations I had in mind are the ones like Habitat that are in fact effective.

0 Replies

Quote:

The only reason I can think of NOT to give money to those organizations is that it continues to let the government think it can get away with shifting the financial burden to individual donors, which is a trend I heartily disagree with.

Soz- But when the government gives away money, they ARE shifting the financial burden to individual donors.............the taxpayers. Personally, I want my charitable giving to go where I want it.................not where the government wants.

0 Replies

Phoenix, the government gives away tons of money already, for pork barrel projects. remember the mohair subsidy? (that's just the example that comes to mind. i'm sure there's too many to list.)

0 Replies

That's exactly what I have a problem with. There are too many unsexy causes that I don't want to be completely dependent on the whim of citizens' largesse.

0 Replies

yitwail wrote:

Phoenix, the government gives away tons of money already, for pork barrel projects. remember the mohair subsidy? (that's just the example that comes to mind. i'm sure there's too many to list.)

Exactly- The government takes our money through taxes, and pisses away a good deal of it. I think that if charity remained in the private and non-profit areas, and taxes were down, people, if they desired, would have more money to give to organizations that benefit the needy.

0 Replies

Anything to back that up? ;-)

I think it's way overoptimistic to think that people would completely voluntarily donate enough to keep anything going at present levels, much less better than present. I think they'd just go and buy more stuff for themselves.

I think the government should do a better job, to be sure, but I think part of the better job should be putting money where it is most needed.

0 Replies

soz- I think that I am relating to the days when people took care of each other, and the government was not so involved in our lives. I remember the story that my mother told me. She came from 7 kids in a very poor family. My grandfather was a tailor, and his work was seasonal.

To get more money in the family, my grandmother worked as a janitor in the apartment house in which she lived. On the weekends, she sold stuff from a pushcart.

My mother related the story about a woman from some social services agency knocked on her door, wanting to give the family some assistance, My grandmother threw the woman out. She was just too proud. My mom said that the only charity that my grandmother ever took, was a free couple of weeks at a summer camp for the kids that was provided by some social service agancy.

Contrast that with people who perceive government charity as an "entitlement".

0 Replies

Phoenix32890 wrote:

Exactly- The government takes our money through taxes, and pisses away a good deal of it. I think that if charity remained in the private and non-profit areas, and taxes were down, people, if they desired, would have more money to give to organizations that benefit the needy.

i'm all for cutting taxes, *IF* spending is also reduced. what the government now does is borrow money to keep funding unneeded programs, so future taxpayers will be stuck with the bill.

0 Replies

yitwal- I agree. The government, whether run by the left or the right, apparently is on a perpetual spending spree. I think that the powers-that-be need to look long and hard before they commit funds to unneeded projects. PRIORITIZE, PRIORITIZE!

0 Replies

Yep.

Phoenix, who are all of these people who see government charity as an entitlement? They exist, I'm sure, but in my experience with that population they overwhelmingly want to get off of government assistance but lack the resources to do so. I directed a "teach a man to fish" agency and my job was basically providing those resources, from childcare subsidies to education. I had a fantastic success rate (100%), with a supposedly hopeless population.

And my own story -- I graduated from college with a degree in English and couldn't find a job anywhere. Several specific "well if you could hear, but..." rejections. (This was just after the passage of the ADA with little trickledown yet, people were still quite overt.) I steadfastedly rejected the idea of SSI, but my husband (then boyfriend) convinced me that my situation is exactly why it exists. I went on it for something like 9 months, and it got me over the hump. I got my master's degree, and started giving back.

Much respect to your grandmother, but even there, it wasn't about people taking care of each other... you say that she didn't let ANYONE take care of her. There are people who need help, desperately, and in such a rich nation as ours they should be getting it.

0 Replies

Quote:

I steadfastedly rejected the idea of SSI, but my husband (then boyfriend) convinced me that my situation is exactly why it exists. I went on it for something like 9 months, and it got me over the hump. I got my master's degree, and started giving back.

Soz- And it is for people like you that I spoke about using the government as a stop-gap measure. You went on SSI with the expectation of using it as a help until you could get off it. Unfortunately, everyone on SSI is not like you. There are those, who once they are on a government subsidy, are disinclined to get off it.

I have met so many people who knew how to "work the system" that my head would spin sometimes.

0 Replies

Quote:

Why?

Because noone has to go through poverty.

Quote:

The answer is liberty and opportunity - thats all that can be provided. More can be done to that end, of course, but much has been accomplished and much is being done. Handouts do nothing but enable and perpetuate poverty.

Well yes, you do want to give them an opportunity to find work, etc. However, the first priority should be to give the person an opportunity to live, thus, handouts are beneficial when people are in dire need and when opportunity does not present itself.

Quote:

I have no problem with helping people out in a pinch.................like the victims of Katrina. I also have no problem with helping the truly disabled, who cannot fend for themselves. I DO have a problem with creating generations of individuals who believe that they are entitled to have their needs met by the government.

If it is possible for the government to create some sort of a safety net, then I do belive that the government should do such. I think it is false to say that when a person is given what they need, they will not have any responsibilities. That is a totally conservative way of thinking that I find tainted with the old sentiment of "pride".

It is not at all surprising if this pride factor happens to be borne out of the negative feedback that some people in society give when they either needed an excuse to not help others while still retaining their reputation, or when they have some sort of dislike for helping the poor but still felt the obligation to help. When these ideas are integrated into popular thinking, it becomes a "vital lie" that people are taught to accept.

IMO, when a person is given what they need to live, then they will work for what they want. Give a person everything they want, then they may forget their responsibilities. It can thus be beneficial that people are provided what they need.

Quote:

dys- I disagree- School taxes are paid for the good of all of society. I don't think that it matters if you have kids or not. That is quite different from taking money away from families who have worked hard for it, and giving it to people who don't.

But they are not even taking away most of your money. Anyways, school taxes are exactly like charity. You said that you don't want your tax to go somewhere you don't want, well, a person without children might not want tax money to go to school.

Quote:

I think that there is a place for charity, but that belongs in the non-profit and private sector. IMO, it is appropriate for government to get involved in the cases that I have mentioned; catastrophes, the severely disabled, and possibly as a stop-gap measure in a pinch

The problem with private sector charity, is that it is inconsistent, and it may not be properly supervised. I mean, the charity organization might only donate 10% of the money or etc.

0 Replies

Quote:

The problem with private sector charity, is that it is inconsistent, and it may not be properly supervised. I mean, the charity organization might only donate 10% of the money or etc.

There are groups that offer invaluable information about the workings of a charity. A donor should know when he is giving money, where it is going, and how much is actually being spent on charitable works, and not administration.

http://charityguide.org/charity/charityratings.htm

http://www.charitynavigator.org/

Found these in a couple of seconds!

And since when has the government ever have been known to be frugal with OUR money? I would suspect that a well run private charity is much more efficient than any government agency.

0 Replies

Quote:

Anyways, school taxes are exactly like charity. You said that you don't want your tax to go somewhere you don't want, well, a person without children might not want tax money to go to school.

I would put taxes that go to schools as beneficial to the entire society. A well educated population is far more desirable for society than a poorly educated one. The same goes for money that is spent on libraries, police, courts, prisons, etc. They benefit all of society, even though the benefit may not be a direct one.

0 Replies

Quote:

And since when has the government ever have been known to be frugal with OUR money? I would suspect that a well run private charity is much more efficient than any government agency.

Well who knows, but the thing with government spending is, that the government is put under public pressure. It may also be a more effective way of charity since it can be spent on homeless shelters, and economic programs.

Quote:

I would put taxes that go to schools as beneficial to the entire society. A well educated population is far more desirable for society than a poorly educated one. The same goes for money that is spent on libraries, police, courts, prisons, etc. They benefit all of society, even though the benefit may not be a direct one.

I understand, but spending money on the poor may also be beneficial to the society, if you look at it that way.

0 Replies

Poverty is a complex issue. It is one that honestly, we will probably not see disappearing within our lifetimes.

How can you help poor people?
Oh my! Tough question! Seriously.

IMO, there are as many ways to help as there are people in this world. Contribute what you can on whatever level you can. If you are well educated, share your information. If you have a lot of money, share that way. Every little act counts. Simply caring about someone other than yourself is a form of contributing.

I try to focus on what I can do. The rest is up to other people. It can get discouraging trying to save the world; and it ain't gonna happen. Maybe I will see one person raise up from rubble in my life, maybe I will see 100 fall. The point is to keep on caring and doing; I think. We all gotta work on it together.

Sorry, I do not have the answers. I think it is a great thing though that you want to help, Ray.
Razz

0 Replies

That was a touching post flush'd. I agree that what we ought to do is to care.

0 Replies

Re: Supererogatory act
Thanks Ray.

My apologies though. I realized I didn't answer your actual question!

Ray wrote:

How much ought we to help the poor?

0 Replies

Maybe you did. It's really a tough question like you said.

0 Replies

Supererogatory act

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know