I think Day 2 was a hit. A little Seinfeld-esque. No comment on the homeless asking for some "spare change"?
Go Cubs. Do they actually have to win another game to get in, or can the Brew Crew hand it to them by just losing?
Philosophy, History and Commentary from Lt. PC
1 comment:
Funny that you should mention the homeless folk, dad. They are indeed regular players in my morning walk, although, because I am heartless, I never give them any money. I used to get even a little riled up that someone would have the audacity to ask me for money as I rushed to work.
"No I cannot stop and find you some change," I would think. "I'm on my way to WORK! Maybe if you got a JOB, you would not need my spare change!"
I tend to consider the 30%+ of my income that I "donate" to the government to be my contribution to the homeless problem. This, of course completely disgusts my democratic colleage. (note the singular.. we're bankers.) I do realize this makes me a horrible person. I've sort of come to terms with it. Maybe one day when I hate my job a little less, I will stop being so jaded and realize that these people have just had bad breaks and need a little helping hand.
But for now, I have the opinion that there are better alternatives to begging available to homeless people, and they should consider some of those options. Get a job and an education! Get yourself into a program and make something happen. Sitting on the street shaking a starbucks cup at me isn't going to get you anywhere. As my buddy Dave says, teach a man to fish, and he'll eat for a lifetime. Give a beggar money, and he'll think he's learned out to fish.
I know my theory about my taxes being enough is flawed, and there are many underfunded welfare programs out there. It sort of comes back to- whose responsibility are the homeless?
This loosely relates to an article I read not too long ago (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/06/business/06giving.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&hp
) which basically debated the pros and cons of the current tax break for charitable donations. The gist of the article was that the government typically loses $1 in tax revenue for every $3 given as a charitable contribution. The article goes on to discuss how many of these so-called charitable contributions are to colleges and universities, centers for the arts, and medical research organizations. While certainly fine things to support, at the end of the day, the bulk of these donations do not go to fill direct needs: feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, sheltering the homeless. The article suggests that the government could allocate the tax revenues lost in a more beneficial way to U.S. citizens than the wealthy choose to allocate their charitable contributions.
Wait - so are you getting this? Some people think letting George and his clown-shop congress allocate $1b to the general population is better than letting some rich people give $3b to charity? Are you joking me!? we'd buy like, 10 tanks, a crate of A/K 47s and call it a day! Where do you think that billion is going to go? Universal healthcare? Fixing social security? Ha!
Okay, okay, I do see the point the article is making. Yes, there are a lot of organizations that are questionable in their classification of "charitable". Some are completely inefficient (although how efficient is the government, right?), and many so-called charitable orgs fail to fill a direct need. But are more than 2/3 of the contributions so bad that we would rather discourage charitable contribution by eliminating the tax break?
This could get into a detailed calculation of how much charitable contribution would be lost if the law was changed, and how much government revenue would increase, etc. etc. I don't really want to get into it that far, but I do think it's an interesting topic.
Do you think the government is better at spending your money than you are?
Post a Comment