| That Guy said: the problem with charities is that some have political agendas/religious affiliations so I'm not sure if the government would officially fund one group over another. I would be open to cutting out welfare all together and instead giving tax breaks for people who donate to non-profit organizations. I'm not sure how the logistics of that would work, though. Some non profits are bound to be corrupt and skim off the top, so it has to be policed one way or another. |
The key to charities is that they are actually charitable. Some may have affiliations, but if they are proved to do very well, then it shouldn't really matter. For example, my local church has a food pantry. The church gives them free overhead (rent, utilities) and workers are provided by the church & community. This allows for the food bank to distribute food at cost, which is given by companies that have excess foodstuffs or damaged goods that are good, but not sellable at market.
We do actually have tax writeoffs for charities. However, Obama has cut back (or is planning on cutting back) concerning maximum contributions.
Of anything I can think of, or believe in, it's the fact that charities do a much better job at giving aid and relief than the government is. Remember Hurricane Katrina? The government wallowed in help, while private charities were down there within days giving what aid they could to the region. The same can be said for almost any disaster.
And you could always police non-profits, quite easily. All you'd have to do is audit them to ensure that they are contributing a certain percentage to the actual cause, and not skimming it in overhead (like paid workers).
Back from the dead, I'm afraid.
