| richardhutnik said: Would it be preferable that government tax dollars go directly to charities if charities are superior for administering it, or just make it all voluntary and hope people give enough? |
Either would work better.
Though i still like the Idea of a negative income tax myself, with rates figured in on a regionary basis.
Extremely neat and simple. Though granted you don't get food bank like savings that way.
Though really, the first has a few issues depending on how it's set up.
1) If congress or another part of the government decides the charities to get help, then we'd n doubt find money spent by the charities to lobby them for donations (well more so then they already do). Essentially creating a kickback system even more direct then the vague rule change situations we have now.
2) If chosen by the people, some may create their own charities, some charity groups may go underfunded as things like Aids research is more "sexy" but less helpful sort term.
I suppose you could fix that by projecting how much money is needed in each "group" and then people can rank their choices of what they'd like to fund, and what registered charities they choose out of each category.
