Charity

[Hitch]

In general terms should charity be free, that is to say outside government coercion, or should it be increasingly a function of government?

 

[jasoncran]

as much as humanly possible the govt should NOT do it save for when the soldier that is a vet is need of pay and medical care for life because of wartime service and or service related injuries.

i would aslo add then when the church cant do to castrophic care and also the community as a whole cant care for someone who has no insurance but is in need of pscychological care in a facility from bp/depresssion or other pyschosis. or major care ie cancer etc..

if the wealthy can assist and carry that person that is preferred.

 

[reba]

Charity is from the heart.

Government 'charity' is like giving a guy a fish.
Charity would be to teach him to fish.


How much tax $$$ was wasted on Katrina? How much charitable $$$ was there to really help?

 

[Hitch]

Charity is from the heart.

Government 'charity' is like giving a guy a fish.
Charity would be to teach him to fish.

It will be interesting to see who really believes in separation of church and state.


s much as humanly possible the govt should NOT (I figured thats what you meant anyways ) do it save for when the soldier that is a vet is need of pay and medical care for life because of wartime service and or service related injuries.

Since national defense is a proper function of gov. it follows the gov,ie public, is responsible ,to the greater extent, for the care of service related injuries, which is by no means charity, but rather the fulfillment of a true and necessary obligation.

 

[jasoncran]

It will be interesting to see who really believes in separation of church and state.


s much as humanly possible the govt should do it save for when the soldier that is a vet is need of pay and medical care for life because of wartime service and or service related injuries.

Since national defense is a proper function of gov. it follows the gov,ie public, is responsible ,to the greater extent, for the care of service related injuries, which is by no means charity, but rather the fulfillment of a true and necessary obligation.

i would like to add law enforcement to that, ie local and state and national since they too are a function of the govt. why? we do it already through disability insurance here where i work.

 

[Rinid]

government tends to mess things up.. so the more they stay out the better.. look at things the government provides, look at the nonprofits doing the same job.. interesting how the non profits do a much better job.

 

[Hitch]

I know that some percentage of the members firmly believe the hand of government should , by force take ," From each according to his ability, to each according to his need".

Odd they havnt spoken up.

 

[Pard]

Charity is the willful act of giving.

No one willfully gives their money to the government, even if you say you do, in a court of law you do not. Whether people will admit it or not, no one really gets the warm fuzzies from paying taxes. Taxation is a requirement that, if not fulfilled, will land you in the slammer, and this it is very hard, probably impossible, to make the case that you willfully are giving the government your money.

Furthermore, there is a means for citizens (and corporations) to donate extra money (that is to say above and beyond what one is being taxed) to the government if you are so inclined, and this further erodes any case made for the willful giving to the government.

Besides, how do you know if your tax dollars are going to charity or not? When you pay taxes they are not divided just like the pie-charts show. Your taxes may just go to a single program. That's how it really works. Things have priorities and the higher priority things get the money first. The first tax forms the IRS goes through probably end up in the salaries of the big-wigs and the ex-big-wigs. Next probably comes defense spending.

 

[WIP]

Charity is the willful act of giving.

No one willfully gives their money to the government, even if you say you do, in a court of law you do not. Whether people will admit it or not, no one really gets the warm fuzzies from paying taxes. Taxation is a requirement that, if not fulfilled, will land you in the slammer, and this it is very hard, probably impossible, to make the case that you willfully are giving the government your money.

Furthermore, there is a means for citizens (and corporations) to donate extra money (that is to say above and beyond what one is being taxed) to the government if you are so inclined, and this further erodes any case made for the willful giving to the government.

Besides, how do you know if your tax dollars are going to charity or not? When you pay taxes they are not divided just like the pie-charts show. Your taxes may just go to a single program. That's how it really works. Things have priorities and the higher priority things get the money first. The first tax forms the IRS goes through probably end up in the salaries of the big-wigs and the ex-big-wigs. Next probably comes defense spending.

I think you're probably right but not 100% of the time. Maybe it's a matter of perspective but I do recall a time in my life when I actually celebrated the idea of "getting" to pay taxes again. I had been living on virtually nothing and supported in part by our welfare system for nearly three years. Even today when the SS administration sends out our annual report and it shows my yearly income record, I get a little funny feeling in my gut to see those three years of data showing $340.00, $0.00, and $0.00. When I finally got a job again I was delighted to pay taxes because that meant I had taxable income.

I would also say that I don't have a problem paying taxes and I don't think that most people really do. What we have a problem with is the amount of taxes or we have concerns about how the money we pay in is being used. I'm glad we have fire, police, ambulance, snow removal, road construction, military protection, etc. and I have no problem paying for these services.

 

[WIP]

I think that in order to answer the question of the OP, one would have to know what the OP defines as "charity."

 

[Pard]

I think you're probably right but not 100% of the time. Maybe it's a matter of perspective but I do recall a time in my life when I actually celebrated the idea of "getting" to pay taxes again. I had been living on virtually nothing and supported in part by our welfare system for nearly three years. Even today when the SS administration sends out our annual report and it shows my yearly income record, I get a little funny feeling in my gut to see those three years of data showing $340.00, $0.00, and $0.00. When I finally got a job again I was delighted to pay taxes because that meant I had taxable income.

I would also say that I don't have a problem paying taxes and I don't think that most people really do. What we have a problem with is the amount of taxes or we have concerns about how the money we pay in is being used. I'm glad we have fire, police, ambulance, snow removal, road construction, military protection, etc. and I have no problem paying for these services.

Let me clarify.

I understand what you mean, and the first time I paid taxes I felt good because it was, in some ways, a show of being a man.

But I don't think we should confuse that type of satisfaction with the satisfaction
we get from charity. I was referencing taxes to charity in my post, you see. Charity is, according to the Bible, the utmost form of love. And, also according to the Bible, taxation is just a service we must commit to our earthly rulers. There is a large distinction between to two. You can be happy that you pay taxes because it shows you respect the Lord and the establishments He has placed upon this earth, but it is never a substitute for the feelings one gets we, in love and with willingness, give.

 

[Drew]

In general terms should charity be free, that is to say outside government coercion, or should it be increasingly a function of government?

I suggest your question is improperly posed as you suggest that taxation is "forced". It really is not - at least in the sense that is relevant. People vote freely to be taxed - very few people would vote not to be taxed.

And one of the reasons people vote to be taxed is that, as a society, they wish to "give to the poor". I will expand on this line of thinking in a later post.

 

[Drew]

Charity is the willful act of giving.

No one willfully gives their money to the government,....

I disagree. People freely choose to be taxed. The fact that the collection is "forced" is really just a matter of pragmatics - it would be wildly impractical to "take up a free will offering" every time a need of the poor is identified.

 

[Hitch]

I suggest your question is improperly posed as you suggest that taxation is "forced". It really is not - at least in the sense that is relevant. People vote freely to be taxed - very few people would vote not to be taxed.

And one of the reasons people vote to be taxed is that, as a society, they wish to "give to the poor". I will expand on this line of thinking in a later post.

Originally Posted by Hitch
In general terms should charity be free, that is to say outside government coercion, or should it be increasingly a function of government?

Dont be rude Drew answer the topic or post some where else.

It is dishonest and rude of you to come on this thread and try to alter the focus to your liking, start your won thread or show enough christian charity to remain on topic.

 

[Drew]

I know that some percentage of the members firmly believe the hand of government should , by force take ," From each according to his ability, to each according to his need".

Odd they havnt spoken up.

This is of course, a statement intended to establish a connection between those of us who believe in taxation to help the poor and the dark image of "communism".

I am confident that (some) readers will not fall for this kind of rhetoric and will want to discuss this matter in a manner devoid of such tactics.

 

[Hitch]

This is of course, a statement intended to establish a connection between those of us who believe in taxation to help the poor and the dark image of "communism".

I am confident that (some) readers will not fall for this kind of rhetoric and will want to discuss this matter in a manner devoid of such tactics.

Whats the matter Drew, the shoe fits to well ?

You want the church to bless you getting your hand into some ones pocket, and that has to be the one who has something to rob. And then ,since God is so poor and distributing wealth, you're going to again seek the blessing of the church to decide who has need.

 

[Drew]

As I have indicated in another thread, I will not answer posts which contain rude personal characterizations.

I will, of course, happily engage any and all posts that meet the appropriate level of politeness.

 

[Pard]

I disagree. People freely choose to be taxed.

Can't disagree more. You can see it however you'd like to see it, but so long as there is a very harsh punishment imposed on those who do not pay their taxes it will be a forced action. That's not my opinion either, it is a statement upheld by the U.S. Federal Court System and numerous state courts.

And we're both adults here, let's not pretend to think that when we vote for something it happens. Last November it was overwhelmingly voted to stop the actions of the previous two years... nothing has yet changed. In 2006 the overwhelming vote showed that people wanted to end the things Bush had been doing... nothing changed.

Actually, the last time I can think that an overwhelming vote for one thing actually worked was back in '94 or '96 when Clinton was in office and the Republicans got that landslide victory in Congress.

 

[Drew]

Many posters seem to think that God does not want us to give “under force†and use this line of reasoning to oppose taxation to support activities that might be reasonably understood to be “charityâ€. I will now argue that fundamentally taxation is not stealing or “forced†giving, but really a practical way to implement the population’s free will based determination to engage in communal activities, including those of a charitable nature.
<O:p</O:p
Suppose that many people in a particular society have empathy for the plight of the poor and wish to be involved in ensuring that these poor get money. What would they do? Would they all get together every day and listen to the petitions of individual poor people and then “pass a hatâ€. Of course not, that is wildly impractical. Nor do people want or need to be burdened with the time-consuming task of identifying poor people and then giving them money directly. Again, wildly impractical. Besides, there may be many poor people that nobody knows about.

What they would instead do is to choose (read “electâ€) some people who share their concern to do the job matching dollars with poor people for them. At this point, I probably should not need to complete the argument, but I will. To delegate this task to a set of people with the time, skill, knowledge, to determine “who should get what†is the efficient, intelligent thing to do. And it might be perfectly appropriate to pay these people to do this “wealth re-distribution†service. Let’s call this chosen set of people the “administratorsâ€.
<O:p</O:p
So all the members of this society freely make a commitment to each pay, say 10%, of their income to this project. And since, of course, it is the administrators who have the job of vectoring this money to where it is most needed, the members of the society give their money to the administrators. In order to make their commitment binding, the members of the society freely consent to being “forced†to pay their share. Let me explain this key point a bit more. The members of the society are making a kind of contractual agreement with the administrators – they are saying “we want you to do the hard work of figuring out who needs what, so to help you out, we each commit to paying our 10 % shareâ€. And in so doing, they recognize and accept that, in order to plan disbursements appropriately the administrators need certainty that people will follow through on their commitment.
<O:p</O:p
So everybody agrees to be legally bound to follow through on their commitment.
<O:p</O:p
Of course, this is precisely what happens when a government “forces†you to pay taxes to support charity. All the simple-minded rhetoric you see in this thread misses the key point – when people in a society decide to collectively help the poor, “taxation†is an efficient, practical way to implement the collective will of the people.
<O:p</O:p
And if the collective will of the people is to help the poor, then this is decidedly a <ST1:p<?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com

</st1:PlaceType>kingdom of <st1:PlaceName w:st="on">God </st1:PlaceName></ST1:paction.<O:p</O:p

 

[Drew]

Can't disagree more. You can see it however you'd like to see it, but so long as there is a very harsh punishment imposed on those who do not pay their taxes it will be a forced action.

I adress this concern in post 19.

And we're both adults here, let's not pretend to think that when we vote for something it happens.

Separate issue. If the government does not do what they promised, vote their butts out. Or make laws requiring the government to obey their commitments, to the extent they are able to.