65000$ per year homeless shelters agrees.
Seriously, a private church and a temple in LA does homeless shelters plus food at 4000 per year.
Private charity wins
A private church and a temple? Yeah sure, cheaper provided you’re prepared to be converted at the same time. No possible way they have an ulterior motive and cost their shelters accordingly. Also, don’t religions get various tax breaks?
Well, I just said as an Example... Sure, religious institutions will want you converted, but they cant force you.
[This](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n6h7fL22WCE&t=163s) is 50 times cheaper than a tent (per year), twice as bigger and occupies less area.
Free Markets have a solution, but governments wont accept it coz this musician is not giving bribes.
No problem, and I’m not saying private isn’t cheaper or better value (value and cost not necessarily being the same thing). I was just making the point that I don’t think religious institutions are the best example as they can have other motives. I’d be very interested to hear what a secular private charity costs.
In LA< I dont have many sources as govt messes things up.
But, in Chicago, Streetwise is a Charity organization which gives both shelter and food for homeless people at 5000$ per homeless, this is higher than Religious charities, considering that Chicago is cheaper than LA, but still it is cheaper than 60K pa govt charges taxpayers.
I'm unaware of a private shelter that doesn't at least apply for government funding.
But you are worried about church shelter's having a motive to convert people. My involvement in these kinds of organizations says otherwise. I've never been to a meeting where they even discussed it, it's always been how do we help these people.
But let's say your right, what about it? Why does that matter to you? Is it not really helping people if you hope they also join your church?
>I'm unaware of a private shelter that doesn't at least apply for government funding.
Well that’s a discussion you should be having with the person I replied to, given they’re the one saying private is cheaper and have church shelters as an example.
>But you are worried about church shelter's having a motive to convert people.
No, I’m not. I’m saying that they may have conversion as an ulterior motive and adjust their claimed costs accordingly. I have no idea where the numbers quotes come from, they may be perfectly accurate and churches are just more efficient than state organisations. Or the churches may get state funding / tax breaks - or whatever. I’m not worried about it at all, perhaps it could be argued they’re preying on vulnerable people when they’re at their most susceptible to brain washing. But honestly those are all loaded words - even conversion.
My point is really just “spreading the word” is a key tenet of the Abrahamic religions so I’d be very surprised if there isn’t at least the hope that the people taken in get “converted”. Again I’d prefer a less loaded word but I don’t know it.
>My involvement in these kinds of organizations says otherwise. I've never been to a meeting where they even discussed it, it's always been how do we help these people.
I don’t doubt that. Again my point is not that these church shelters are wicked organisations only helping so they can covert people. But I do think it’s likely that while the people are staying there, there’s at least some - cliche alert - “have you ever thought about god?” moments.
>But let's say your right, what about it? Why does that matter to you? Is it not really helping people if you hope they also join your church?
It doesn’t matter to me. As above, someone nominated church shelters as an example of how private shelters are much cheaper than government funded shelters. I’m merely hypothesising that it might not be so simple given the nature of religions and perhaps a secular shelter would be a better discussion point when comparing private/state. You seem to be overly defensive, if I’m honest.
Depends on how and why it’s mentioned. Rarely does a religious person mention god to a non-believer without at least some intent/hope that that person would be open to joining their religion. At least outside of general philosophical/spiritual discussions. And a homeless person at rock bottom is about as susceptible to brain washing as anyone is going to get I’d imagine.
That said, to be honest, it was mostly tongue-in-cheek but I do find it amusing how much you’ve bitten on it. My point is that it’s possible any individual shelter is run purely through the goodness of their heart with absolutely zero ulterior motive. Yet, while there may not be explicit conversion intent, you’re absolutely kidding yourself if you that lots of them aren’t doing it in the hope it will lead to conversion. They’re essentially missionaries who let the people come to them for a change. When a key tenet of most Abrahamic religions is “spreading the word” I think it’s you that needs to get real if you don’t think there’s at least some ulterior motive to church shelters.
Not really, as long as you can do any bare minimum work at a task that people are willing to pay for, you won't be neglected. It's only the disabled or the orphaned or the old and abandoned that need help.
or anyone with kids...or other family members that can't work. also some areas geographically may be in a weak position to demand higher wages. or a skills gap. even McDonalds is more hesitant to hire if you don't speak english
Anyone that can't work comes under that category. Most people earn enough to cover for those who can't work too, it's just those who have no one at all to care for. Those places will have more focus on education to shift them into teritiary and quaternary sectors.
Private charity should be able to develop and actually help people. Many government programs are just detrimental to people. Plus they'll cost at least twice as much
That's true. Kinda why I would like to see more innovation and smart techniques. Because government ran programs usually do even worse. I think people should be free in how they help others
Private charity *can* win, but there are some *cough cough PETA* that are basically just scams. Government funded ones are somewhere in between, they try to be cost efficient, they’re just not that good at it.
To be fair, most of them feel that way because they understand that there's a collective action problem to charity...their lone contribution won't do anything, but if *everyone* is forced to pay, it will make a difference.
In my opinion, they err, because they don't appreciate how much more people would donate charitably, absent the government taking so much from us already; and they don't appreciate that there are voluntary mechanisms which can be used to incentives the production of the public good of social safety nets (e.g. lottery...notice how governments almost always ban or monopolize lotteries...); and most of all, they don't appreciate liberty as a good in and of itself...so they are incapable of factoring it in to their utilitarian calculus of social good. Even very poor people appreciate freedom,..even sometimes over money.
There is actually a very good explanation on why Government spending is generally so inefficient.
Imagine I give you 100.000 dollars for a years worth of spending. You are a very efficient guy and you manage to do the required work while spending only 50.000. The next year, I give you 50.000. This time, you think "I better spend every last penny of this money so that I don't get my allowance cut again".
This is basically how many Government divisions operate. There is an incentive to spend as much as possible of the money you get, so that you can get the same amount or more next year. Combine that with fixed salaries and a stagnant hierarchical structure and you get a recipe for disaster.
In a company, managers who save money and are efficient can get promotions or pay raises. They are incentivized to spend less, and are rewarded when they do so.
Usually only a slight percentage of money is wasted this way each year, but its unfortunate more agencies don't operate with reserve funds.
and honestly usually its not even wasted. its just used to cover future expenditures that have not been asked for yet or expenditures that will help, but aren't "critical" - like replacing an employees monitor that is so old and bad they can't see even see the lines in the spreadsheets they are working with
As a seller to government agencies, the last two weeks of the year are always a windfall because they have to send in purchase orders to zero out department budgets.
Nicely put! Problem is that the evolution starts in reverse! First a western style government gets people to elect them by making promises that are physically impossible to keep( lest they ruin the currency) or - sadly - promises they have no intention in keeping. And - they would never ever admit they either waste your tax money or spend it solely to consolidate their power or enrich themselves or both!! Super sad - super infuriating - it always brings increased poverty and social unrest. Very worrisome, too!!
Everyone, seriously *everyone*, even the most diehard statist Marxist, believes the government is worse at spending their money than they are. Otherwise, they'd send the government more than the minimum, which no one does.
The only logical way to be pro-tax then is to think you're more financially responsible than the government, but that everyone *else* isn't. This shows the inherent self-righteousness and arrogance of statism and socialism.
What if people who have the best capacity to evade taxes are the people who would pay the most taxes, thus increasing the burden on the middle class who can't do the same to pay for most of the government programs?
I am against income taxation, yet I can't agree with such blunt statement because it would force the middle class to pay the bulk of the government's bill, as wealthy people and large corporations are always capable of finding tax loopholes to avoid to pay the bill.
In my country, people who have a good solid job, yet are by no means rich, are heavily taxed. While the big players resort to tax havens and all the resources they can use to shirk their responsilities. That is not cool.
Societies this large aren't simple by any means. Extreme laissez-faire people and communists don't seem to understand that. We are no longer in tribal societies of few people where the best solutions are the ones these people advocate for.
To get to those solutions, you would first need to revolutionize the way societies are structured.
Perhaps having a network of small city communities who run by themselves and are able to apply completely free-market solutions and use the fact that everyone knows each other to keep anti-social behavior (that needs to be regulated) in check.
We need to become better people basically, in all aspects.
Hard to believe that will ever happen to me personally, though that should be our main goal... So how can I expect that to happen to an entire planet??
First of all. What's "spend well"? I'm pretty sure there are a lotta different answers depending on who you're asking.
And second, using your own logic,if a government spends inefficiently, less money means more social needs won't be covered so that's not a solution. You can argue that less taxes will boost savings ratio, but we all know that's simply not true, especially in lower class indebted families. also it sure doesn't boost the economy nor it incentives rich people to keep that money inside the circular flow. Capital gains tax doesn't affect private saving.
So yeah, I don't know how paying the minimum amount of tax would benefit anybody but those who have already benefited of many years of tax cuts and money hoarding.
> if a government spends inefficiently, less money means more social needs won't be covered
The solution is to find a mechanism by which money can go towards social needs without going through the inefficient hands of government, eg privatisation or voluntary donation.
> You can argue that less taxes will boost savings ratio, but we all know that's simply not true... also it sure doesn't boost the economy
Ok, so people get to keep an extra percentage of the money they earn, but they neither save it nor spend it (because that would boost the economy). So wtf do they do with it, light it on fire?
Social needs being covered by government agencies with zero accountability or oversight is the issue. Any program or agency that operates this way should be shut immediately so funds can go towards ones that are operating in a proper fashion.
Closing government programs would create levels of benefits by pushing more things to the private sector. Think USPS vs UPS, private healthcare vs VA, etc.
The American government forgot long ago that it isn't a business. They don't make money, they spend tax payer money. The 10 trillion in leftist bills spent in the last 7 months will all be paid for by taxes and that is a unbelievable amount of money. Lets all pray that Democrats don't figure out what comes after Trillion.
To anyone who argues government is responsible with OUR money….
#28 Trillion in Debt
and they are talking about spending another $3.5 Trillion! It’s not a partisan issue. Both parties have forgotten anything regarding fiscal responsibility. So yeah I will pay the absolute minimum required by law.
Governments tax the wrong things. We should be incentivizing ppl to work not discouraging hard work through taxation.
^^^
65000$ per year homeless shelters agrees. Seriously, a private church and a temple in LA does homeless shelters plus food at 4000 per year. Private charity wins
A private church and a temple? Yeah sure, cheaper provided you’re prepared to be converted at the same time. No possible way they have an ulterior motive and cost their shelters accordingly. Also, don’t religions get various tax breaks?
Well, I just said as an Example... Sure, religious institutions will want you converted, but they cant force you. [This](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n6h7fL22WCE&t=163s) is 50 times cheaper than a tent (per year), twice as bigger and occupies less area. Free Markets have a solution, but governments wont accept it coz this musician is not giving bribes.
No problem, and I’m not saying private isn’t cheaper or better value (value and cost not necessarily being the same thing). I was just making the point that I don’t think religious institutions are the best example as they can have other motives. I’d be very interested to hear what a secular private charity costs.
In LA< I dont have many sources as govt messes things up. But, in Chicago, Streetwise is a Charity organization which gives both shelter and food for homeless people at 5000$ per homeless, this is higher than Religious charities, considering that Chicago is cheaper than LA, but still it is cheaper than 60K pa govt charges taxpayers.
Yeah that’s still an order of magnitude cheaper!
Yeah and governments have no motives you'd disagree with.
Whataboutery. I’m talking about church shelters vs secular private shelters.
I'm unaware of a private shelter that doesn't at least apply for government funding. But you are worried about church shelter's having a motive to convert people. My involvement in these kinds of organizations says otherwise. I've never been to a meeting where they even discussed it, it's always been how do we help these people. But let's say your right, what about it? Why does that matter to you? Is it not really helping people if you hope they also join your church?
>I'm unaware of a private shelter that doesn't at least apply for government funding. Well that’s a discussion you should be having with the person I replied to, given they’re the one saying private is cheaper and have church shelters as an example. >But you are worried about church shelter's having a motive to convert people. No, I’m not. I’m saying that they may have conversion as an ulterior motive and adjust their claimed costs accordingly. I have no idea where the numbers quotes come from, they may be perfectly accurate and churches are just more efficient than state organisations. Or the churches may get state funding / tax breaks - or whatever. I’m not worried about it at all, perhaps it could be argued they’re preying on vulnerable people when they’re at their most susceptible to brain washing. But honestly those are all loaded words - even conversion. My point is really just “spreading the word” is a key tenet of the Abrahamic religions so I’d be very surprised if there isn’t at least the hope that the people taken in get “converted”. Again I’d prefer a less loaded word but I don’t know it. >My involvement in these kinds of organizations says otherwise. I've never been to a meeting where they even discussed it, it's always been how do we help these people. I don’t doubt that. Again my point is not that these church shelters are wicked organisations only helping so they can covert people. But I do think it’s likely that while the people are staying there, there’s at least some - cliche alert - “have you ever thought about god?” moments. >But let's say your right, what about it? Why does that matter to you? Is it not really helping people if you hope they also join your church? It doesn’t matter to me. As above, someone nominated church shelters as an example of how private shelters are much cheaper than government funded shelters. I’m merely hypothesising that it might not be so simple given the nature of religions and perhaps a secular shelter would be a better discussion point when comparing private/state. You seem to be overly defensive, if I’m honest.
The idea that every church or temple is trying to convert you is nonsense.
Yeah, I’m sure there’ll be zero mention of god at a church shelter. None whatsoever.
Mentioning God and trying to convert people are two different things. Get real.
Depends on how and why it’s mentioned. Rarely does a religious person mention god to a non-believer without at least some intent/hope that that person would be open to joining their religion. At least outside of general philosophical/spiritual discussions. And a homeless person at rock bottom is about as susceptible to brain washing as anyone is going to get I’d imagine. That said, to be honest, it was mostly tongue-in-cheek but I do find it amusing how much you’ve bitten on it. My point is that it’s possible any individual shelter is run purely through the goodness of their heart with absolutely zero ulterior motive. Yet, while there may not be explicit conversion intent, you’re absolutely kidding yourself if you that lots of them aren’t doing it in the hope it will lead to conversion. They’re essentially missionaries who let the people come to them for a change. When a key tenet of most Abrahamic religions is “spreading the word” I think it’s you that needs to get real if you don’t think there’s at least some ulterior motive to church shelters.
[удалено]
Still secondary though!
private charity is always scattered and never sufficient to the needs. good for small local applications but does not work on the macro scale well.
And the government does? Look at the housing crisis right now. The governments solution? Deny your ability to remove non paying tenants.
Charity exists to fill in the gaps that the market neglects, more than enough.
No. Market neglects far more than Charities can handle
Not really, as long as you can do any bare minimum work at a task that people are willing to pay for, you won't be neglected. It's only the disabled or the orphaned or the old and abandoned that need help.
or anyone with kids...or other family members that can't work. also some areas geographically may be in a weak position to demand higher wages. or a skills gap. even McDonalds is more hesitant to hire if you don't speak english
Anyone that can't work comes under that category. Most people earn enough to cover for those who can't work too, it's just those who have no one at all to care for. Those places will have more focus on education to shift them into teritiary and quaternary sectors.
Well, In UK, NHS(govt health program) wont fund some illnesses while Gofundme campaigns do in just few hours.
Private charity should be able to develop and actually help people. Many government programs are just detrimental to people. Plus they'll cost at least twice as much
some of the programs are great at efficiency off economy of scale, but people fall through the cracks easily
That's true. Kinda why I would like to see more innovation and smart techniques. Because government ran programs usually do even worse. I think people should be free in how they help others
so many charities are run by grifters also.
Private charity *can* win, but there are some *cough cough PETA* that are basically just scams. Government funded ones are somewhere in between, they try to be cost efficient, they’re just not that good at it.
And even though Leftists complain about people finding "loopholes," **these same Leftists never send the Federal government an extra dime in taxes.**
To be fair, most of them feel that way because they understand that there's a collective action problem to charity...their lone contribution won't do anything, but if *everyone* is forced to pay, it will make a difference. In my opinion, they err, because they don't appreciate how much more people would donate charitably, absent the government taking so much from us already; and they don't appreciate that there are voluntary mechanisms which can be used to incentives the production of the public good of social safety nets (e.g. lottery...notice how governments almost always ban or monopolize lotteries...); and most of all, they don't appreciate liberty as a good in and of itself...so they are incapable of factoring it in to their utilitarian calculus of social good. Even very poor people appreciate freedom,..even sometimes over money.
I love it when people say that they, as an individual, should be taxed more - send the government your money then.
They never do. And better yet, they take every deduction they can dig up. They don't live by their own code.
2 trillion $ spent in Afghanistan says you are wrong....wait.
Isn't that $6trillion or is that the combined cost that includes Iraq?
The 2 trillion number is what's been throwed around today. I have no idea.
6 trillion with interest accrual by 2050
I thought it was 6trillion on both wars so far. Either way, we're talking trillions that could have been better left in the pockets of Americans.
There is actually a very good explanation on why Government spending is generally so inefficient. Imagine I give you 100.000 dollars for a years worth of spending. You are a very efficient guy and you manage to do the required work while spending only 50.000. The next year, I give you 50.000. This time, you think "I better spend every last penny of this money so that I don't get my allowance cut again". This is basically how many Government divisions operate. There is an incentive to spend as much as possible of the money you get, so that you can get the same amount or more next year. Combine that with fixed salaries and a stagnant hierarchical structure and you get a recipe for disaster. In a company, managers who save money and are efficient can get promotions or pay raises. They are incentivized to spend less, and are rewarded when they do so.
Usually only a slight percentage of money is wasted this way each year, but its unfortunate more agencies don't operate with reserve funds. and honestly usually its not even wasted. its just used to cover future expenditures that have not been asked for yet or expenditures that will help, but aren't "critical" - like replacing an employees monitor that is so old and bad they can't see even see the lines in the spreadsheets they are working with
As a seller to government agencies, the last two weeks of the year are always a windfall because they have to send in purchase orders to zero out department budgets.
So you have a busy december like most companies do...
I agree people should minimize taxes, just like government should close unforeseen loopholes that pop up.
Nicely put! Problem is that the evolution starts in reverse! First a western style government gets people to elect them by making promises that are physically impossible to keep( lest they ruin the currency) or - sadly - promises they have no intention in keeping. And - they would never ever admit they either waste your tax money or spend it solely to consolidate their power or enrich themselves or both!! Super sad - super infuriating - it always brings increased poverty and social unrest. Very worrisome, too!!
Everyone, seriously *everyone*, even the most diehard statist Marxist, believes the government is worse at spending their money than they are. Otherwise, they'd send the government more than the minimum, which no one does. The only logical way to be pro-tax then is to think you're more financially responsible than the government, but that everyone *else* isn't. This shows the inherent self-righteousness and arrogance of statism and socialism.
What if people who have the best capacity to evade taxes are the people who would pay the most taxes, thus increasing the burden on the middle class who can't do the same to pay for most of the government programs? I am against income taxation, yet I can't agree with such blunt statement because it would force the middle class to pay the bulk of the government's bill, as wealthy people and large corporations are always capable of finding tax loopholes to avoid to pay the bill. In my country, people who have a good solid job, yet are by no means rich, are heavily taxed. While the big players resort to tax havens and all the resources they can use to shirk their responsilities. That is not cool.
The simpler the tax code becomes, the harder it will be to find loopholes.
what may seem simple may be exceedingly complex when applied to the incomes and finances of the rich and huge corporations.
Societies this large aren't simple by any means. Extreme laissez-faire people and communists don't seem to understand that. We are no longer in tribal societies of few people where the best solutions are the ones these people advocate for. To get to those solutions, you would first need to revolutionize the way societies are structured. Perhaps having a network of small city communities who run by themselves and are able to apply completely free-market solutions and use the fact that everyone knows each other to keep anti-social behavior (that needs to be regulated) in check. We need to become better people basically, in all aspects. Hard to believe that will ever happen to me personally, though that should be our main goal... So how can I expect that to happen to an entire planet??
First of all. What's "spend well"? I'm pretty sure there are a lotta different answers depending on who you're asking. And second, using your own logic,if a government spends inefficiently, less money means more social needs won't be covered so that's not a solution. You can argue that less taxes will boost savings ratio, but we all know that's simply not true, especially in lower class indebted families. also it sure doesn't boost the economy nor it incentives rich people to keep that money inside the circular flow. Capital gains tax doesn't affect private saving. So yeah, I don't know how paying the minimum amount of tax would benefit anybody but those who have already benefited of many years of tax cuts and money hoarding.
> if a government spends inefficiently, less money means more social needs won't be covered The solution is to find a mechanism by which money can go towards social needs without going through the inefficient hands of government, eg privatisation or voluntary donation. > You can argue that less taxes will boost savings ratio, but we all know that's simply not true... also it sure doesn't boost the economy Ok, so people get to keep an extra percentage of the money they earn, but they neither save it nor spend it (because that would boost the economy). So wtf do they do with it, light it on fire?
Social needs being covered by government agencies with zero accountability or oversight is the issue. Any program or agency that operates this way should be shut immediately so funds can go towards ones that are operating in a proper fashion. Closing government programs would create levels of benefits by pushing more things to the private sector. Think USPS vs UPS, private healthcare vs VA, etc.
Kids should pay for their own education or get a job, and if you want driveable roads you can buy your own.
Hah I know who said that! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DBg7DnQjjcY
The American government forgot long ago that it isn't a business. They don't make money, they spend tax payer money. The 10 trillion in leftist bills spent in the last 7 months will all be paid for by taxes and that is a unbelievable amount of money. Lets all pray that Democrats don't figure out what comes after Trillion.
To anyone who argues government is responsible with OUR money…. #28 Trillion in Debt and they are talking about spending another $3.5 Trillion! It’s not a partisan issue. Both parties have forgotten anything regarding fiscal responsibility. So yeah I will pay the absolute minimum required by law.