Anyone have a particular view on this, or care to propose a percentage of the USA tax expenditures that should be considered charity?
depends on your income and total tax paid. Some of your taxes pay for stuff you actually use: roads, bridges, parks, military, education, some government administration, etc. These things are not charity and you should be paying for your share and your families share. I could try to calculate a value, but I am too lazy, so I will take a random guess that this is $5000 per person. So a family of 4 should pay $20,000. Everything over that is charity. This is Federal tax, local will be different.
Google tells me per capita spending is roughly 12K national, 5k state, 5k local. 20k total per person.
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/US_per_capita_spending.html
Here are some charts for you, pick out what you think is charity and then you can figure the % is covers in the budget. It won’t be big, couple % at most i would guess. Unless you think we don’t need a military or should honor SSI benefits, or provide Medicare to those that paid into and earned it…
https://www.nationalpriorities.org/budget-basics/federal-budget-101/spending/
Here are some charts for you, pick out what you think is charity and then you can figure the % is covers in the budget. It won’t be big, couple % at most i would guess. Unless you think we don’t need a military or should honor SSI benefits, or provide Medicare to those that paid into and earned it…
https://www.nationalpriorities.org/...budget-101/spending/
It is more complicated than that. Within each category there are portions that are clearly charity. It will definately add up to more than “a couple percent”. Everyone will have differing opinions on what is and is not charity
this chart is much more detailed.
What I take from this is that the part of my taxes that go to pay for things which me and my children use is much higher than I thought.
Yeah, me too. I’m thinking foreign aid and the food stamp program are definite charity. Those amount to ~3.3% of total expenditures. I suspect that there is quite a bit of “jobs programs” in the federal agencies thrown in there, but I have no idea how to go about quantifying it.
Anyone have a particular view on this, or care to propose a percentage of the USA tax expenditures that should be considered charity?
Yawn.
Why consider any of it “charity”? Perhaps we are all in this together. I don’t have kids, but don’t view taxes for schools to be charity.
But, if we are going to consider some of this charity, then a fairly big source of charity is the tax deductibility of contributions to a church. It’s a large transfer from the non-religious to the religious. Go to whatever religious institution you want, but why should others help pay for that by giving you a tax deduction? Can I get a tax deduction for my health club membership?
I think part of mango’s argument is along these lines: if you pay high taxes then you are subsidizing the costs for other potential tax payers thus providing charity. So if the per capita cost of infrastructure is $100 per tax payer and you pay $200, the extra $100 is charity.
to add another degree of complexity . . . we are also paying into an ‘insurance’ plan, such that we are paying into a system that would also be extended to us should we need it . . . needless to say we are forced to pay into this policy. Seeing it this way, the $$$ we put into the system that goes out to legitimate needs of individuals is like an insurance payout and is not charity since the same payout would be extended to us. . . . the $$$ that goes out to abusers of the system is not charity but robbery.
So 0 dollars go to charity.
Hmmm… but couldn’t I consider all charity an “insurance” plan then? Surely if bad things befell me, then wouldn’t I be the potential beneficiary of charity?
Why consider any of it “charity”? Perhaps we are all in this together. I don’t have kids, but don’t view taxes for schools to be charity.
**I will assume that you once went to school. **
But, if we are going to consider some of this charity, then a fairly big source of charity is the tax deductibility of contributions to a church. It’s a large transfer from the non-religious to the religious. Go to whatever religious institution you want, but why should others help pay for that by giving you a tax deduction?
Churches supposedly do good for the world, just like every other charitable organization. Some do more good than others, just like other charities. Many have proposed getting rid of all charitable contribution deductions. Seems fair. After all, why should I pay for tax deductions for others whose causes don’t really concern me. I don’t have heart disease, why should I pay for others deductions to the american heart association. I don’t have MS… I don’t have epilepsy… I don’t care about poor people in other countries… etc
Can I get a tax deduction for my health club membership?
Yes, if your health club is a church gym.
Does your health club operate off of voluntary contributions? I would like to join.
I think part of mango’s argument is along these lines: if you pay high taxes then you are subsidizing the costs for other potential tax payers thus providing charity. So if the per capita cost of infrastructure is $100 per tax payer and you pay $200, the extra $100 is charity.
Yes, I’m not considering the “over-paying my fair share” argument. I’m more going for what % of the whole budget could be considered legitimate charity. Then I can just assume that same % of what I’m paying in.
if giving to the charity formally assures that you are buying coverage then yes.
I agree. I’m not looking at tax deductions – letting you keep your own money – as charity. That goes more towards the “paying my fair share” argument,and like I said, I’m really not looking to hash that out in this thread.
if giving to the charity formally assures that you are buying coverage then yes.
Sure. But if I’m forced to participate, mostly for the sake of charity and not because of my risk profile, then I still consider it charity.
Edit: However, I think this should change the calculus a bit for folks that are more likely to utilize aspects of the social safety net.
Somewhere between 0% and 100%? My church has a lot of charity programs which are similar to government programs (health care, feeding the poor, caring for the elderly, clean water projects, infrastructure help, providing low-cost housing, supporting micro-loans in developing countries, bailing out large banks, maintaining a nuclear arsenal…)
Somewhere between 0% and 100%?
It’s going to be tough to argue with this one.
removed because I was sounding like a douche
.
Edit: However, I think this should change the calculus a bit for folks that are more likely to utilize aspects of the social safety net.
Except that I think the really heavy hitting programs that make up that social safety net are applied universally, and thus can’t really be considered a social safety net at all. For instance, if Social Security was means tested, I think you could consider it a social safety net. When everyone gets paid? More of a terribly conceived and executed investment plan. (Not exactly, but I trust you know what I mean.)
I don’t think any portion of your tax bill can be considered charity. Charity is voluntary. (Well, not enforced by an outside agency.) At the same time, I think it can be a legitimate endeavor of society to ensure that there are certain baselines of well-being that people don’t fall below. Is it charity? If you want to think of it that way, OK. I don’t think that makes it a bad thing, though.