Government and Charity

Originally posted by KellyJay
It is the inheritor's wealth correct, their money to do with as they will?
If that is true they suffer the loss when they give it away.
As long as they are not forcing away from someone else to give the money
away I'd say it is charitable.

Well you said "Those that give away what they worked for are the only ones in my opinion that are really giving to charity."

and I don't see the work that inheritors do.

Originally posted by KellyJay
I went back and looked I didn't see you quoting anything I'm sorry, that
is except where the Pres. was going on about we are not just a Christian
nation. If you point it out to me or I'm sorry quote it again I'll look at it.

It is on page 6 of this thread. I repeat my post below:

It depends on how one defines charity. One definition is aid given to those in need. So under this definition it does not matter whose money is given to those in need. I was also thinking of foreign aid provided to other governments in need in the obvious attempt to buy their cooperation. But this type of Charity is not Christian charity which is given out of love and compassion to the poor and needy.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/charity

Originally posted by KellyJay
It is the inheritor's wealth correct, their money to do with as they will?
If that is true they suffer the loss when they give it away.
As long as they are not forcing away from someone else to give the money
away I'd say it is charitable.

What about shareholders' "wealth" i.e. corporate profits (potential dividends)? Do you think that corporate charity, charitable donations, and CSR, are not really charity if only a majority of the shareholders (as opposed to them being unanimous) approve of the corporate board's decisions?

Originally posted by FMF
What about shareholders' "wealth" i.e. corporate profits (potential dividends)? Do you think that corporate charity, charitable donations, and CSR, are not really charity if only a majority of the shareholders (as opposed to them being unanimous) approve of the corporate board's decisions?

Corporate giving is a business decision, not charity.

It provides a twofold benefit, tax evasion and advertisement.

Originally posted by whodey
Corporate giving is a business decision, not charity.

It provides a twofold benefit, tax evasion and advertisement.

There may be tax benefits and there may be good publicity ~ and you may approve or disapprove of the motivation ~ but it's still charity if it is an activity or grant that benefits the public at large by providing help to the needy, deprived or suffering to which they do not have some legally binding entitlement.

Originally posted by JS357
Well you said "Those that give away what they worked for are the only ones in my opinion that are really giving to charity."

and I don't see the work that inheritors do.

I'm sorry, if that were the only thing I said I'd be wrong! Your money is
your money, you take a loss when it is taken away be it all worked for
or inherited it. Unlike when someone takes money that does not belong
to them and gives that away. Even charities are given money and they
give it out as they see fit, if you were to by force take money from them
and gave it away that money that was forced away wouldn't be charity.

Originally posted by RJHinds
It is on page 6 of this thread. I repeat my post below:

It depends on how one defines charity. [b]One definition is aid given to those in need. So under this definition it does not matter whose money is given to those in need. I was also thinking of foreign aid provided to other governments in need in the obvious attempt to buy their cooperati ...[text shortened]... d compassion to the poor and needy.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/charity[/b]

I believe I touched upon this I get we like giving to those in need, we all
agree we should give to help and do what it takes. My position is that
I'm saying you cannot harm one to help another and only look at the good
you do to the one you help! Government harms people as it takes away
money from them, and we should be giving money to the government to
do those things we cannot do ourselves. I can give to help others, I cannot
build an army.

The government unlike us takes away money from those that earned it to
do a lot of things it should be doing, and doing things we should be.

Originally posted by KellyJay
I believe I touched upon this I get we like giving to those in need, we all
agree we should give to help and do what it takes. My position is that
I'm saying you cannot harm one to help another and only look at the good
you do to the one you help! Government harms people as it takes away
money from them, and we should be giving money to the government t ...[text shortened]... m those that earned it to
do a lot of things it should be doing, and doing things we should be.

I agree.

Originally posted by KellyJay
Even charities are given money and they
give it out as they see fit, if you were to by force take money from them
and gave it away that money that was forced away wouldn't be charity.

OK, I can understand that you don't feel that you are being charitable when you pay taxes which are then used in some charitable way, but the fact that you don't like paying taxes does not mean that some of the money raised in that way is not then used for some charitable purposes.

The fact that you resent it means that you are not [in your own mind, anyway] part of whatever charity that is being carried out ~ I think you've made that point ~ you'd rather you had the money so that you could use it on yourself or donate it to a charity of your liking. But this does not mean that the money (which you wish you had, and not the government) is not or cannot be put to a charitable use.

Originally posted by KellyJay
The government unlike us takes away money from those that earned it to
do a lot of things it should be doing, and doing things we should be.

So do you accept that some beneficial and important things that need to be done, and need to be done consistently and thoroughly, cannot be left to the vagaries, unevenness, and perhaps sometimes short-term or fickle nature of personal donations and uncoordinated endeavours?

In England an individual or organisation can give to registered charity of their choice and obtain a small tax relief against it. In this respect the Government loses an amount of tax revenue without being able to control the charity to which the donation is being made. So in this case, yes it is Government charity.

Originally posted by OdBod
In England an individual or organisation can give to registered charity of their choice and obtain a small tax relief against it. In this respect the Government loses an amount of tax revenue without being able to control the charity to which the donation is being made. So in this case, yes it is Government charity.

Really the government gives permission to give to charity for tax relief!?
Tax relief for giving isn't really giving for charity is it, it sounds more like
giving for tax relief not out of the goodness of one's heart for charity.

That sounds more like giving to get something out of it. The trouble with
government and charity as you are talking it about is that only the
"registered charity" get that type of tax relief. If the government does not
like the charity can it be denied?

You still are not addressing that the government doesn't use its own money
it only uses money it took from others! It is very easy to give away others
people's money it doesn't cost you it only cost them!

Originally posted by KellyJay
You still are not addressing that the government doesn't use its own money
it only uses money it took from others! It is very easy to give away others
people's money it doesn't cost you it only cost them!

And yet it can still be charity when it 'gives it away' ~ in answer to your OP.

And it does 'cost' them in so far as money spent on X cannot be spent on Y or Z. It is spending money on behalf of society and the uses to which money is put need to be deliberated over and prioritized. Money funnelled to the military and arms industry, for example, 'costs' the government (and society at large) because this money is then unavailable for other purposes or for tackling certain problems, including charitable spending.

Originally posted by KellyJay
Really the government gives permission to give to charity for tax relief!?
Tax relief for giving isn't really giving for charity is it, it sounds more like
giving for tax relief not out of the goodness of one's heart for charity.

That sounds more like giving to get something out of it. The trouble with
government and charity as you are talking it abou ...[text shortened]... hers! It is very easy to give away others
people's money it doesn't cost you it only cost them!

No, it is genuine charity, the gift still costs the individual or organisation 80% of the overall amount but the government contributes 20% by way of a reduced tax bill. In order to become a "registered" charity you simply must show that you are a genuine charity, this is to avoid scams. I'm surprised the US hasn't a similar non political system( especially as it is far more religious than the UK).

Originally posted by KellyJay
It is the inheritor's wealth correct, their money to do with as they will?
If that is true they suffer the loss when they give it away.
As long as they are not forcing away from someone else to give the money
away I'd say it is charitable.

So you are do not need them to have worked for it as you said you did. Fine, just curious.