flashing ticker
To interact with this page you must login.      Signup

Is charity "a capitalist and conservative project"?

"Charity is a capitalist and conservative project - it leaves the social structures of hegemony intact, reinforcing them by making the poor dependent on the rich. Charity also implies that mandatory taxation is not needed, or need not collect sufficient funds."
spacer
categorysociety
typeunderstand
tynamite
tynamite's avatar
Charity is a capitalist and conservative project.
Yes it is, in the sense that rich people donate charity so that they pay less tax. This trick is called tax relief. It's legal too!

Charity leaves the social structures of hegemony intact
Yes it does! Did you know that in the UK, for every £1 you give to charity, 20p of that will be taxed by the government? The unethical 20% "thieving" tax on charitable donations, is setup so that no matter how much money you give to help out other countries, that Britain will always be one step ahead!

Charity makes the poor dependant on the rich.
It does for some countries. There are tropical foods being grown in some African countries, and although some people there are starving, they are still sending us their food for us to sell. The reason why they aren't keeping this food, or asking for the European (and British) food surpluses which are getting regularly burnt, is because those countries want to be independent, grow their economy, and not be dependant on handouts.

Charity also implies that mandatory taxation is not needed, or need not collect sufficient funds.
See tax relief.
If everyone was required to give to charity, would we still need tax? Yes we would. So there ya go!
report this post permalink
tynamite
tynamite's avatar

Christopher

If everyone was required to give to charity, that pretty much would be a tax. So why not just increase taxes?
report this post permalink
tynamite
tynamite's avatar

Me

Because then none of that money would go to the government.
report this post permalink
tynamite
tynamite's avatar

Christopher

This is probably where we hit the age-old divide between Socialism/Communism and other economic and political philosophies - the idea behind them is that a centralised Government is the most efficient and effective way to redistribute money in order to lessen inequality and promote socioeconomic equality, but detractors argue about whether we can trust/rely upon a centralised Government to do so in the most efficient and effective way…
report this post permalink
tynamite
tynamite's avatar

Me

What does this have to do with Socialism or Communism?
report this post permalink
tynamite
tynamite's avatar

Christopher

The point of the question is really, should we tax more (i.e. the state-centralised and planned economy of socialism/communism) and thus obviate charity/be able to abolish it, so that the state can decide what to do with all the money that people are willing to give? The state can then decide the best charitable use of that money, and distribute it, which is more efficient and effective than having many thousands of small charities, each with their own admin overheads. With higher taxes replacing charities, collected money wouldn't need to be spent on fundraising.
report this post permalink
tynamite
tynamite's avatar

Me

The government should not tax more in order to have a pot of money to give to charity, because that wouldn't provide a substantial benefit to the citizens or charities, considering how a lot of rich people give to charity.

Charities won't get much of a benefit out of this, because the working class are being squeezed enough financially, being made the burden of paying most of the taxes, with little welfare, education or jobs; so to tax people for something they won't be affected by, people will be disgusted by. Charities get most of their donations from the rich, anyway, because of tax relief.
report this post permalink
tynamite
tynamite's avatar

Christopher

The point is that socialism and progressive taxation taxes richer people more for that reason anyway. This question is about not having charities at all, in order to make collecting and distributing money more efficient, as you wouldn't have to have charities spending money on fundraising and admin, if people have to give the money through tax instead anyway - the government gives directly to causes.
report this post permalink
tynamite
tynamite's avatar

Me

I hate socialism because it suggests that the FTSE 100 should be nationalised, and although welfare will be handed out, it is against the rich from being rich.
report this post permalink
tynamite
tynamite's avatar

Christopher

Just focus on progressive taxation then - wouldn't it be more efficient to tax richer people more and give that money to charity, rather than having thousands of small charities each spending donated money on admin and fundraising, and competing against each other for the same money (or even the same causes)?
report this post permalink
tynamite
tynamite's avatar

Me

There are enough issues with raising taxes for the rich, as it is. The Bank of England last year wanted to raise the bank reserves up from 5% to 7%, to make the banking system safer and more stable. Some rich bankers threatened to leave the country or take their money out of it, if it happened, so it never did.
report this post permalink
tynamite
tynamite's avatar

Me

The rich are distributing money to charities. The sad fact is that no matter how much you give to charity, that it will always be a drop in the ocean. Firstly because charities are a business, and secondly because of corrupt countries.
report this post permalink
tynamite
tynamite's avatar

Christopher

But there's no control over:
a) How much the people who can afford it give, and when they do so, and
b) Which causes they give to.

a) Charities find it difficult to plan what they spend money on, as their income isn't regular in amount or timing, whch is inefficient, and
b) There could be causes which are more worthwhile or needy which aren't getting the money they deserve, than what people choose to give to, because they aren't fully aware of the relative merits, needs, and urgencies of the causes.
As I've mentioned, there's all the money currently spent on fundraising, which could be saved.
report this post permalink
tynamite
tynamite's avatar

Tim

With charity you can choose where your money goes, with taxes you can't.
report this post permalink
What's an assertion, and what should I type in?

Compesh is a question and answer (and debate) website, so before you make a debate, you better learn what an assertion is. I suppose you already know what a question is, and that you've typed it in the box. ;)

An assertion, is basically a statement you can make, that is either true or false.

Richer people have better health.

The question for that would be, Do richer people have better health?

And don't forget to make your assertion, match your question.

Compesh logo