Jump to content


The 2020 Presidential Election - Convention & General Election


Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, knapplc said:

If there's one thing the Trump residency has taught us, it's that the Oval Office is no place for rich old guys to get their on-the-job training in politics.

 

If Howard Schultz wants to run for political office, he can start with local politics and work his way up.  No free pass to the top because he's wealthy. 

 

 

:lol:

 

2 hours ago, TheSker said:

Totally agree.

 

I believe there are more efficient and effective ways to aid than putting the partisan, inefficient government in charge of societal needs.

 

29 minutes ago, TheSker said:

Is it possible your dollar could be pooled more efficiently, and at a more local level?

 

You can rather easily do a vetting process on charities.  It puts the need vetting in your hands to add to pooled money.  

 

Kinda cool, huh?

 

Among the reasons taxation is fought are government distrust and government inefficiency.

Check out Winners Take All: The Elite Charade of Changing the World by Anand Giridharadas, which describes why the elites controlling charities isn't a good thing (even if they truly intend it to be). You can also find online videos of him describing the issues.

  • Plus1 1
Link to comment

14 minutes ago, TheSker said:

An environmental example equating to social issues/income distribution?.......

 

 

I don’t get why you make these one off comments where you’re as vague as humanly possible instead of making an attempt at having an actual discussion, but I digress.

 

 

You are talking about more efficient ways to pay for things than taxes. I asked you what is more efficient, and so far your answer doesn’t cover a myriad of things I can think of where taxes are more efficient. It didn’t have to be an environmental example. It was an example. That’s how examples work. And, for the record, environmental problems can cause social issues. It can cause people to lose their livelihoods.

 

 

I don’t recall you stating you were only talking about things like welfare. But I think the example still applies. People like giving charity to people they actually see so they can know the effect it has. It’s not as efficient, imo.

 

There are lots of people who might be disabled and relying on welfare that wouldn’t even be found or helped by a hodge podge of charities.

Link to comment
40 minutes ago, Moiraine said:

People like giving charity to people they actually see so they can know the effect it has. It’s not as efficient, imo.

 

There are lots of people who might be disabled and relying on welfare that wouldn’t even be found or helped by a hodge podge of charities.

Well of course people like to give charity where they can literally see the dollars being used effectively.

 

I'm not sure what a hodge podge is in this case.  Most charities are very specific in the cause they serve, whether health related, homelessness or employment assistance.

 

Welfare isn't going away, nor should it.

Link to comment

19 minutes ago, TheSker said:

Well of course people like to give charity where they can literally see the dollars being used effectively.

 

I'm not sure what a hodge podge is in this case.  Most charities are very specific in the cause they serve, whether health related, homelessness or employment assistance.

 

Welfare isn't going away, nor should it.

 

 

 

Then what are you even talking about? Like I said, you tend to make vague one liners. It makes conversing with you difficult. You mentioned social issues and distribution when I mentioned the environment. Welfare is one of the big ones people like to discuss and recipients of welfare would likely be recipients of the charity you’re talking about. 

Link to comment
11 minutes ago, TheSker said:

I've heard about Trump's.

 

What about Zuckerberg's?  What happened to it?

Nothing yet. He just used it as a way to keep his money and control without having to pay taxes on it. 

 

http://fortune.com/2015/12/02/zuckerberg-charity/

Quote

Mark Zuckerberg’s pledge to his new daughter is an impressive one: Namely, that he and his wife Priscilla Chan will give away 99% of their net worth in their lifetime, as described in an open letter to their new offspring. That works out to about $45 billion, based on the current value of Facebook stock.

The Facebook co-founder is using a somewhat unusual structure in order to fulfill his charitable pledge, however—one that gives him more control over what happens to the money he is promising to give away, but still provides tax benefits.

 

As BuzzFeed and others have pointed out, the charitable foundation Zuckerberg and Chan have set up is a limited-liability corporation, not a charitable trust...Corporations can make for-profit investments and political donations—and unlike charitable trusts, they don’t have to report their political donations.

 

He "gave to charity" to avoid further taxes, but still gets the benefits of having control of his money. Oh, and he can donate to whatever political faction he wants to without letting anyone know about it on top of it.

 

Quote

The "Donation is an LLC NOT a Non- Profit. He can lobby and invest with it. What he's done is create his own Superpac.

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
1 hour ago, Moiraine said:

 

 

The people who tend to be the most distrustful of government seem happy to trust mega corporations to not harm anyone and to police themselves. They seem happy to let the country be an oligarchy. 

 

The people who tend to be the most distrustful of the government also seem happy to suckle at its teat when they need to, a fact they work very hard to ignore.

 

For that matter, mega corporations run crying to the federal government when they need help -- which is often. They don't "police themselves" but they do expect the government to intervene against their competitors. 

  • Plus1 2
Link to comment
20 minutes ago, deedsker said:

Nothing yet. He just used it as a way to keep his money and control without having to pay taxes on it. 

 

http://fortune.com/2015/12/02/zuckerberg-charity/

 

He "gave to charity" to avoid further taxes, but still gets the benefits of having control of his money. Oh, and he can donate to whatever political faction he wants to without letting anyone know about it on top of it.

 

 

Sounds like Zuckerberg would prefer more control over his wealth than letting the government have the control.

 

I don't find that odd.

Link to comment

4 minutes ago, TheSker said:

Sounds like Zuckerberg would prefer more control over his wealth than letting the government have the control.

 

I don't find that odd.

Except he isn't going to pay his "fair share" either. So now, you and I need to either pay more or get less benefit for our roads, bridges, healthcare, environment, etc.

 

He is his own government now. He paid himself to not pay the public. The public now has less to benefit everyone.

  • Plus1 2
Link to comment
8 minutes ago, TheSker said:

Of course.

 

And because of reporting structures they can get caught.  Obviously.

There are caught all the time, but they have little accountability. 

 

https://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=3264

 

Example 1:

They only use 40% of revenue toward operating benefits. There is no repercussions for such a waste of money other than, don't give them more money. Which obviously hasn't worked to the tune of $15 million a year.

 

Government Example 2:

Quote

Take the Social Security Administration, as slender and effective a bureaucracy as exists on earth. The organization makes monthly payments to 61 million beneficiaries, with a low error rate and overhead well below 1 percent of costs. 

https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/10/graham-cassidy-states-federal-efficiency/541599/

 

Charity here is more than 60% less effective than the federal government.

 

Example 3:

A great charity by all measures, still less effective than the social security administration at its job.

 

https://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=3260

  • Plus1 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
48 minutes ago, deedsker said:

There are caught all the time, but they have little accountability. 

 

https://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=3264

 

Example 1:

They only use 40% of revenue toward operating benefits. There is no repercussions for such a waste of money other than, don't give them more money. Which obviously hasn't worked to the tune of $15 million a year.

 

Government Example 2:

https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/10/graham-cassidy-states-federal-efficiency/541599/

 

Charity here is more than 60% less effective than the federal government.

 

Example 3:

A great charity by all measures, still less effective than the social security administration at its job.

 

https://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=3260

Note the part in the article about difficulty in comparison of even federal and state government.

 

And this doesn't even account for a vetting process....which is something the Zuckerberg's and Gates' are obviously quite interested in.

Link to comment
4 minutes ago, TheSker said:

Note the part in the article about difficulty in comparison of even federal and state government.

 

And this doesn't even account for a vetting process....which is something the Zuckerberg's and Gates' are obviously quite interested in.

Federal and State, but this is charity efficiency versus Federal or State efficiency. Both governmental options do it better.

 

Charity, more control, but far less efficient than government at doing things. That is the key. Charity plays an important role, but is less efficient and has no oversight other than graft (illegal uses of money).

  • Plus1 1
Link to comment
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...