NationStates

People donate to the government all the time.

In fact, it's tax deductible. Perks for donating to government units already exist.

The US government has a PO box where you can send voluntary donations.

Constitutional amendment that government shall be donation ran.

USS Monitor wrote:The US government has a PO box where you can send voluntary donations.

The problem is that the government does nothing to promote this fact, so many billionaires who want to donate money to the government are unaware of it (and therefore feel that they have to lobby for higher taxes on themselves). The federal government of the USA is trillions of dollars in debt and can use every dollar that people are willing to send its way.

Personally, given the seriousness of the government's financial situation, I'd add a notice on every government document and in every government building informing people how to donate to the government. They need it!

I give money to the national park service most years.

Xerographica wrote:So what do you think? Should we start a movement to ensure that every GO has a very visible donate button on its website? Or... should we start a movement to ensure that voluntarily giving money to the government is as difficult as possible?

Basically, I'm very critical towards such a proposal. Just because there are some citizens who are so good hearted that they are willing to voluntarily donate their hard-earned money, why should those people be exploited by everyone else so they can get out of contributing their fair share to the community that is society? That really is to misuse good hearted people who wish to contribute to society, just so one self can get out of contributing to society. Those who don't want to contribute (pay) their fair share also benefit from the societal benefits that tax revenues provide - such as financing for the police so that they can feel safe and secure and payment of salaries to public sector nurses or social workers who each day provide help and support for socially disadvantaged/ vulnerable kids and families who are having a hard time making their life work. I bet if at some point in your own life you get into similar social problems or for some other reason you get in the need for outside help, you would very much like to get that help on the other taxpayers' expense - since it is so, you have to be willing to contribute by paying your taxes when you have the opportunity to do so and not just let other good hearted people carry your part of the burden. If everyone did that there's no way society would be cohesive and functional.

I'm not saying people should be completely banned from making voluntary donations to GO's, however, I believe it would be deeply wrong and unethical for GO's to outright ask for or beg for donations - it would be to exploit benevolent people so that everyone else can get out of contributing to the community (society) despite the fact that ultimately they themselves benefit from Government revenues as well.

Here's the deal. Even the staunchest patriot becomes less supportive when the government wants his money, especially when he's already paying taxes. I know I would never donate to the government, and I suspect that a good number of people would take the same position. By all means, make it simple to donate to different government organizations, just don't expect a lot of response.

Wouldn't that make people think that a government is financially desperate, and hence make a target for further ridicule?

Aren't taxes just forced donations?

Insaeldor wrote:Aren't taxes just forced donations?

No, they are not. Taxes are a debt

Ethel mermania wrote:

Insaeldor wrote:Aren't taxes just forced donations?

No, they are not. Taxes are a debt

More like a jack. Money's gone before you even get to see it.

Brandenbourg-Anhalt wrote:Basically, I'm very critical towards such a proposal. Just because there are some citizens who are so good hearted that they are willing to voluntarily donate their hard-earned money, why should those people be exploited by everyone else so they can get out of contributing their fair share to the community that is society? That really is to misuse good hearted people who wish to contribute to society, just so one self can get out of contributing to society.

Let's say that Linus pays $5000 in property taxes and $5000 in income taxes. Sally doesn't pay any property taxes or any income taxes. Then there's Charlie.... he donates $50 dollars to the EPA.

Linus is exploiting Charlie? Is Sally exploiting Charlie as well? Is Sally also exploiting Linus?

If paying income/property taxes makes you an exploiter of donors... and not paying income/property taxes also makes you an exploiter of donors... then donors exploit themselves.

It's weird to think that people who pay more taxes are exploiting donors. It's somewhat less weird to think that people who pay less taxes are exploiting donors.

It seems reasonable to argue that people who pay less than their fair share are exploiting people who pay more than their fair share. But it seems somewhat less reasonable in situations where people are voluntarily paying more than their fair share. It doesn't seem so reasonable to argue that homeless people exploit donors to homeless shelters.

Generally people donate because they derive some benefit from doing so. Sometimes the benefit is tangible... such as the 10 "free" trees you get when you join the Arbor Day Foundation. Othertimes the benefit is entirely intangible... which has been described as a "warm glow".

If people voluntarily donate money to the government... then it's pretty safe to say that they derive some benefit from doing so. And it's also pretty safe to say that taxpayers derive a benefit from paying less taxes. So facilitating donations would, in terms of increasing benefit, be a win-win situation.

Galloism wrote:People donate to the government all the time.

In fact, it's tax deductible. Perks for donating to government units already exist.

Did you miss me? Did you even notice that I wasn't around? Did you notice that Maqo isn't around? How much do you think we would have had to pay him to stick around? What is the perceived scarcity of Maqo's forum posts?

Nice job with the homework on the government donations. So are you under the impression that it's perfectly legal to donate to every government organization?

Xerographica wrote:

Galloism wrote:People donate to the government all the time.

In fact, it's tax deductible. Perks for donating to government units already exist.

Did you miss me? Did you even notice that I wasn't around? Did you notice that Maqo isn't around? How much do you think we would have had to pay him to stick around? What is the perceived scarcity of Maqo's forum posts?

Nope. Nope. Nope. Don't care. Apparently not at all.

what does any of that have to do with whether or not you can donate to governmental units?

Nice job with the homework on the government donations. So are you under the impression that it's perfectly legal to donate to every government organization?

As far as I know it is. I don't know of any law against it.

Now certain governmental units may reject donations from certain people because of conflicts of interest and the risk of influence peddling. It would be of extreme conflict for the FBI to accept donations from a known drug kingpin, for instance.

Galloism wrote:

Xerographica wrote:
Did you miss me? Did you even notice that I wasn't around? Did you notice that Maqo isn't around? How much do you think we would have had to pay him to stick around? What is the perceived scarcity of Maqo's forum posts?

Nope. Nope. Nope. Don't care. Apparently not at all.

what does any of that have to do with whether or not you can donate to governmental units?

Nice job with the homework on the government donations. So are you under the impression that it's perfectly legal to donate to every government organization?

As far as I know it is. I don't know of any law against it.

Now certain governmental units may reject donations from certain people because of conflicts of interest and the risk of influence peddling. It would be of extreme conflict for the FBI to accept donations from a known drug kingpin, for instance.

That's why they donate to the politicians instead.

Seriously what's the point wasting time on donations? Just tax, especially the wealthy.

The government already collects taxes. Why does it need donations?

Voluntaryism is bollocks, if that's what you're saying.

Aren't my taxes enough?

They already make us pay taxes. Donations are not needed.

Divitaen wrote:Seriously what's the point wasting time on donations? Just tax, especially the wealthy.

Cause I like the national park service, and want them to have more money.

On the local level I give to the county animal shelter as well.

Any government with control over their own money supply has no need to seek donations. Governments are not NGO's. They do not need donations. They have many ways to raise revenue.

Divitaen wrote:Seriously what's the point wasting time on donations? Just tax, especially the wealthy.

It would be a waste of time for the EPA to ask for donations?

What if I ask you for $500 dollars? Are you going to give it to me without asking any questions? If so, then please give me $500 dollars. I'll telegram you my paypal info.

Chances are pretty good that you're going to want a pretty good reason in order to give me $500 dollars. And the better my reason, the more likely you are to give me the $500 dollars.

With this in mind... here are a few possible assumptions on your part...

1. The EPA doesn't have a good reason to ask for more money
2. The people who elect congress are too dumb to recognize a good reason
3. The free-rider problem is a real problem

Which assumption is it? Is there some other reason that you're assuming that it would be a waste of time for the EPA to ask the public for money?

Galloism wrote:what does any of that have to do with whether or not you can donate to governmental units?

1. We can benefit from Maqo's posts without paying for them. Therefore, Maqo's posts are a public good.

2. You didn't benefit from Maqo's posts... but I did. Benefit is in the eye of the beholder. One person's trash is another person's treasure. Values are entirely subjective.

3. Even though I benefited from Maqo's posts... Maqo didn't know this. This is because Maqo isn't omniscient. Nobody is omniscient.

4. Because Maqo isn't omniscient... I should have used my money to inform Maqo of the amount of benefit that I derived from his posts. I didn't use my money to inform Maqo of my benefit because I gambled that he was going to continue posting. Why buy the cow if you can get the milk for free? Plus, this forum doesn't facilitate micropayments.

5. Because the free-rider problem is a real problem... Maqo is no longer around. I derive less benefit from this forum because Maqo isn't around. Just like I derive less benefit from this forum because Infactum isn't around.

Now do you see the relevance?

If you go to the EPA website... can you find a donate button anywhere? A donate button wouldn't eliminate the free-rider problem. But it would certainly help reduce the free-rider problem.

Here's Eric Raymond's Patreon page. Does Patreon eliminate the free-rider problem? No. But it certainly reduces the problem by making it easier for people to give their money to Raymond.

It's important to facilitate communication of benefit because again, nobody is omniscient. Society works best when it's easier, rather than harder, for us to let other people know how much we benefit from their endeavors. This is true whether we're talking about Maqo's forum posts or the EPA's effort to protect the environment.

Xerographica wrote:

Galloism wrote:what does any of that have to do with whether or not you can donate to governmental units?

1. We can benefit from Maqo's posts without paying for them. Therefore, Maqo's posts are a public good.

2. You didn't benefit from Maqo's posts... but I did. Benefit is in the eye of the beholder. One person's trash is another person's treasure. Values are entirely subjective.

3. Even though I benefited from Maqo's posts... Maqo didn't know this. This is because Maqo isn't omniscient. Nobody is omniscient.

4. Because Maqo isn't omniscient... I should have used my money to inform Maqo of the amount of benefit that I derived from his posts. I didn't use my money to inform Maqo of my benefit because I gambled that he was going to continue posting. Why buy the cow if you can get the milk for free? Plus, this forum doesn't facilitate micropayments.

5. Because the free-rider problem is a real problem... Maqo is no longer around. I derive less benefit from this forum because Maqo isn't around. Just like I derive less benefit from this forum because Infactum isn't around.

Now do you see the relevance?

If you go to the EPA website... can you find a donate button anywhere? A donate button wouldn't eliminate the free-rider problem. But it would certainly help reduce the free-rider problem.

Here's Eric Raymond's Patreon page. Does Patreon eliminate the free-rider problem? No. But it certainly reduces the problem by making it easier for people to give their money to Raymond.

It's important to facilitate communication of benefit because again, nobody is omniscient. Society works best when it's easier, rather than harder, for us to let other people know how much we benefit from their endeavors. This is true whether we're talking about Maqo's forum posts or the EPA's effort to protect the environment.

I have this notion, and this is kind of a wild idea so you may want to sit down.

You could just tell people you appreciate them and you like their posts. Then you've communicated your preference. Then they don't have to be omniscient - just literate.

For government agencies, you can use the link I provided to the treasury website to donate to any federal agency you want at any time. You can also communicate your preferences by writing your representative. Again - no omniscience required. Just literacy.

Whew, good days work gentlemen. Glad we figured that out.

Cuprum wrote:Aren't my taxes enough?

No, in fact your home and car are now property of the state of Texas thank you for the donation.