Should The Government Seek Donations?

[Xerographica]

Have any of you ever made a donation to the government? Anybody? I'm guessing that most of you haven't. Because... if the government wants money... then it doesn't ask for money... it simply takes it. Or borrows it. Or prints it.

Do you even know if donating to the government is even possible? The last time you visited a government website... did you notice a donate button anywhere? A while back I dug around and discovered that there are quite a few government organizations (GOs) that do accept donations. But unfortunately, I failed to find a comprehensive list. So I have no idea if there are any GOs that prohibit donations.

Personally, I think that GOs should try just as hard as non-profits to encourage donations. The more donations that the government receives... the less money it will need to take, borrow or print. Here's a snippet from the GAO website...

Our work leads to laws and acts that improve government operations, saving the government and taxpayers billions of dollars.

If it's good for the GAO to help the government save taxpayers billions of dollars... then wouldn't it be good for the GAO to help save taxpayers even more money by ensuring that GOs are making every effort to encourage donations?

Can any of you imagine yourself going to the EPA website, donating $50 dollars and receiving a t-shirt in return? What would the t-shirt say? "I'm a sucker for the environment!" Maybe there are better incentives? When you join the Arbor Day Foundation you get 10 "free" trees! I'm guessing that any donation to a GO would be tax-deductible... right?

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?

[Internationalist Bastard]

I pay my taxes and get nothing out of it, so yeah, I guess I do.

[Italian-Australia]

HAHAHA good luck. The government won't hand out prizes for donations.

[The Blaatschapen]

HAHAHA good luck. The government won't hand out prizes for donations.

The 'staatsloterij' (state lottery of the Netherlands) begs to differ.

[New DeCapito]

Donations? You mean taxes?

[Kelinfort]

So are you suggesting running a government on donations?

[Italian-Australia]

HAHAHA good luck. The government won't hand out prizes for donations.

The 'staatsloterij' (state lottery of the Netherlands) begs to differ.

Well fine but in almost all the countries I've heard of, you make the donation, they accept it. End of story

[Turkiistan]

Technically the government would just keep the taxes and reap the donations. That's how a government rolls.

[Rusozak]

They already take a chunk of your paycheck before you even get it. Can't see why anyone would want to donate.

[Uxupox]

Who in their right mind would donate their hard earned wages to the government? We already got something for that it's called taxes.

[The Liberated Territories]

I am in full support of switching the current model of death and taxes to a more citizen friendly model.

[Gauthier]

Take the financial situation of your local public television station. Now imagine trying to imagine a national government running like that.

[Astrakha]

They do just not actively

You can contribute here.

[New Werpland]

They can accept donations, but not go as far as to let them become the sole source of revenue.

[The Liberated Territories]

They can accept donations, but not go as far as to let them become the sole source of revenue.

Why not?

[New Werpland]

They can accept donations, but not go as far as to let them become the sole source of revenue.

Why not?

State services have to be assured, they aren't charities.

[The Liberated Territories]

Why not?

State services have to be assured, they aren't charities.

"Lol they aren't charities" is not an argument. Similarly, I'd ask why you think it's preferable - no - necessary to initiate the use of force in accomplishing these provisions.

[Mefpan]

They can accept donations, but not go as far as to let them become the sole source of revenue.

Why not?

The amount of people that would donate a meaningful amount of money to the government is so ridiculously pitifully tiny that the government would end up unable to do anything and I like my police and fire department and other assorted emergency services thank you very much.

State services have to be assured, they aren't charities.

"Lol they aren't charities" is not an argument. Similarly, I'd ask why you think it's preferable - no - necessary to initiate the use of force in accomplishing these provisions.

"Donate please or accept the total breakdown of all vital infrastructure" is not use of coercive force, then?

[The Liberated Territories]

Why not?

The amount of people that would donate a meaningful amount of money to the government is so ridiculously pitifully tiny that the government would end up unable to do anything and I like my police and fire department and other assorted emergency services thank you very much.

"Lol they aren't charities" is not an argument. Similarly, I'd ask why you think it's preferable - no - necessary to initiate the use of force in accomplishing these provisions.

"Donate please or accept the total breakdown of all vital infrastructure" is not use of coercive force, then?

No, because such vital infrastructure is an entitlement. You just don't get handed stuff on a platter irl without it having to come from another source already.

Also

The amount of people that would donate a meaningful amount of money to the government is so ridiculously pitifully tiny that the government would end up unable to do anything and I like my police and fire department and other assorted emergency services thank you very much.

A.) People already donate huge sums of money to the Vatican and they don't do a damn thing for you.
B.) If a certain institution cannot already be competitive in the marketplace due to a lack of value, then logically, we can conclude that people don't value healthcare and fire services as much as you think. If everyone in the US that voted Democrat (and Republican!) for these state provided services could similarly donate some money instead, then we'd still see these services be provided, unless they are unauthentic Democrats/Republicans, and don't care about these services.

[New Werpland]

The amount of people that would donate a meaningful amount of money to the government is so ridiculously pitifully tiny that the government would end up unable to do anything and I like my police and fire department and other assorted emergency services thank you very much.


"Donate please or accept the total breakdown of all vital infrastructure" is not use of coercive force, then?

No, because such vital infrastructure is an entitlement. You just don't get handed stuff on a platter irl without it having to come from another source already.

Not unlike property rights.

[Godular]

I wonder if it would be useful for the government to set up crowdfunding for various civic works that aren't necessarily required, but just might be good to have going, like alternative energy projects and such.

Even have perks for pledging different amounts and stuff. Make it all tax deductible, maybe?

[Mefpan]

"Donate please or accept the total breakdown of all vital infrastructure" is not use of coercive force, then?

No, because such vital infrastructure is an entitlement. You just don't get handed stuff on a platter irl without it having to come from another source already.

It still costs money. Money that a donation-based system will not bring in.

The amount of people that would donate a meaningful amount of money to the government is so ridiculously pitifully tiny that the government would end up unable to do anything and I like my police and fire department and other assorted emergency services thank you very much.

A.) People already donate huge sums of money to the Vatican and they don't do a damn thing for you.
B.) If a certain institution cannot already be competitive in the marketplace due to a lack of value, then logically, we can conclude that people don't value healthcare and fire services as much as you think. If everyone in the US that voted Democrat (and Republican!) for these state provided services could similarly donate some money instead, then we'd still see these services be provided, unless they are unauthentic Democrats/Republicans, and don't care about these services.

a.) The Vatican is the center of a really big religion. Unless you somehow make people worship policemen, the fire department, clean water, electricity and other bits and pieces of modern life luxuries they won't get donations like that.
B.) Of course people don't value them that highly because they're being taken for granted by far too many people at this point. That doesn't mean we don't need them. Like, what happens to those who refuse to donate and suddenly they need them, but they haven't made a donation? Like, no.

[Lordieth]

How would that work? What if there was a significant shortfall in the second year? The budget would be chaotic.

That said, a tax-based structure with donations which would reduce tax bills would be beneficial. That way the budget would remain the same, but taxation would decrease when donations increase, which in turn would increase prosperity and increases in tax earnings.

There would be a danger, however, of over-spending, and that would need to be addressed.

[Iwassoclose]

They should incentivize filing taxes, like a big lottery, to get the money they are already owed from people. I think there is like 100bn in back taxes.

[Wine-loving Chimps]

I wonder if it would be useful for the government to set up crowdfunding for various civic works that aren't necessarily required, but just might be good to have going, like alternative energy projects and such.

Even have perks for pledging different amounts and stuff. Make it all tax deductible, maybe?

This is an interesting idea.

I could see this as a local council thing. For, say, a specific road or project, they could venture into crowd funding to get it done.

Probably a pipe dream, but it is exciting to ponder a system of government that didn't need force to collect money to pay for the stuff it provides.