Subject:
|
Re: Misperceptions of America (Was: Conversation w/ a LEGO Rep)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 27 Aug 1999 05:26:32 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2315 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> If you say that people don't give enough to private charity, consider
> whether they would give more, or less, than they do now if they paid
> less in taxes to fund things involuntarily.
>
> I say people are good and they would give more if they had more.
That's not sufficient. For your point to be valid, people would not only
have to give more, but would have to give at least as much more
as charities get from taxes.
Incidently one of the arguments in the UK (and I don't see why
it shouldn't be equally valid in the US) against schools relying too much
on voluntary donations from parents is that schools in wealthy areas
get much more that way than schools from poor areas (because
poor parents can't afford to give much). If it's done
through public funding then the money gets distributed more evenly.
> If you say they would not, you are denying that people are basically
> good and kind and honest. Therefore you are not life affirming. ;-)
Ha ha! But seriously, there are many ways that people can be life affirming
- so your point doesn't really follow. How much people give to charity
depends on many factors - including how good the charities are at publicity.
Simon
http://www.SimonRobinson.com
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
276 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
