NationStates Jolt Archive

I have just submitted a resolution to the UN, here is what it says:

WHEREAS: Chairites and other non-profit organizations are looking out for the common good.
WHEREAS: Charities and other non-profit organizations rely on donations to survive.
WHEREAS: Some people may look away from donations to charitable organizations because of income taxes.
WHEREAS: It would be in the best intrests of the international community to support these charities.
WHEREAS: Because nations should incourage donations, they should do all in thier power to make donations look better in the views of thier citizens.
THEREFORE: All UN Nations shall make donations to non-profit charities tax-deductible.

It can be found on pg 23 or 24 of the proposals.

Here are the reason's behind it's submission:

If we look at tax-deductible organizations, we will find that the vast majority of them do something beneficial to society, ex) disaster relief, low-cost housing, free medical care. However, these organizations do not have very many options when it comes to funding themselves. They have to pay the people who work for the organization, but they give out their service for free. Because they look to donations for this support, and they help the common good, government should look to support donations. Now, the government could always donate themselves, but then the people don't feel like they are contributing and it could lead to an increase in taxes. Insted, if the government just makes the donations tax-deductible, people will not be as frightened to "give away" money. Let's face it, we live in a greedy society, and people don't want to give up what they earn, but with this resolution, we would be giving people an incentive to donate. That way, we would be supporting charitable organizations, therefore, supporting the general welfare of society.

I hope you endorse this proposal so that it can make it to the voting floor and become enacted.

Sincerely,
Nicky Bell
United Socialist States of North Duke

I have just submitted a resolution to the UN, here is what it says:

Should be fun...

WHEREAS: Chairites and other non-profit organizations are looking out for the common good.

Not necessarily true...

WHEREAS: Charities and other non-profit organizations rely on donations to survive.
WHEREAS: Some people may look away from donations to charitable organizations because of income taxes.

So? No government, charities become useless.

WHEREAS: It would be in the best intrests of the international community to support these charities.

It is in the best interest of the international community to look after itself, not charities.

WHEREAS: Because nations should incourage donations, they should do all in thier power to make donations look better in the views of thier citizens.

Why? If charities are good, word of mouth gets around. If not, then they don't deserve to survive.

THEREFORE: All UN Nations shall make donations to non-profit charities tax-deductible.

Um, no. I would rather not. I enjoy the spending money too much, and my nation appreciates the military.

It can be found on pg 23 or 24 of the proposals.

Here are the reason's behind it's submission:

If we look at tax-deductible organizations, we will find that the vast majority of them do something beneficial to society, ex) disaster relief, low-cost housing, free medical care. However, these organizations do not have very many options when it comes to funding themselves. They have to pay the people who work for the organization, but they give out their service for free. Because they look to donations for this support, and they help the common good, government should look to support donations. Now, the government could always donate themselves, but then the people don't feel like they are contributing and it could lead to an increase in taxes. Insted, if the government just makes the donations tax-deductible, people will not be as frightened to "give away" money. Let's face it, we live in a greedy society, and people don't want to give up what they earn, but with this resolution, we would be giving people an incentive to donate. That way, we would be supporting charitable organizations, therefore, supporting the general welfare of society.

If people are donating to charities for a good reason, they don't need an incentive to. If they require an incentive, they are donating for the wrong reasons.

I hope you endorse this proposal so that it can make it to the voting floor and become enacted.

I would rather not.

OK, I think I understand what you are saying, but some of your logic is a little skewed:

It is in the best interest of the international community to look after itself, not charities.

Part of looking after yourself is looking after what happens in your community, and how what you do will affect it. Since charities help the international community, you would in fact be helping yourself if you supported charities. Charities help raise the standard of living and prestige of a community, and therefore we should support them.

If charities are good, word of mouth gets around. If not, then they don't deserve to survive.

Even with word of mouth, people are still greedy with money. If word of mouth was so good, the United Way and the Red Cross we be getting three times what they currently get in donations. People worry about themselves more than the good of the international community.

Um, no. I would rather not. I enjoy the spending money too much, and my nation appreciates the military.

It sounds to me you are arguing against this bill for the sake of argument.

If people are donating to charities for a good reason, they don't need an incentive to. If they require an incentive, they are donating for the wrong reasons.

All donations have a good reason. But sometimes people need the extra push, the extra reason, just to push them far enough to make the donation. Plus, it might make some donations bigger.

Actually we don't have tax-deductable donations in TilEnca. Instead we let the charity keep the tax. So that not only do they get the donation, but we give them the extra tax on it (up to a certain value).

Would this be permissible under your proposal? Or would we have to stop doing this?

OK, I think I understand what you are saying, but some of your logic is a little skewed:

Only if you assume people are not selfish, cruel, egotistical beings at heart.

Part of looking after yourself is looking after what happens in your community, and how what you do will affect it. Since charities help the international community, you would in fact be helping yourself if you supported charities. Charities help raise the standard of living and prestige of a community, and therefore we should support them.

All charities do is throw money and supplies at a problem in a desperate hope it will work. Naturally, it doesn't most of the time.

Part of the international community looking out for itself is trying to help itself survive. Each nation needs to be primarily worried about the nation as a whole. No matter how hard you try, there will always be people on the bottom rung. There will always be disasters and always be people in trouble. All a charity can do is try to help them out. They are, at best, a bandaid.

Even with word of mouth, people are still greedy with money. If word of mouth was so good, the United Way and the Red Cross we be getting three times what they currently get in donations. People worry about themselves more than the good of the international community.

That is as it should be. Nations are, in general, the same way. Also, the Red Cross has had just as much bad word of mouth as good in recent years.

If people cannot donate for a good reason, then they shouldn't donate. That is my view on it. Darwinism of charities.

It sounds to me you are arguing against this bill for the sake of argument.

When I want to argue just for the sake of it, I post on General.

All donations have a good reason. But sometimes people need the extra push, the extra reason, just to push them far enough to make the donation. Plus, it might make some donations bigger.

Okay, let's have fun with this one.

A bunch of criminals, intent on just getting rid of a guy, rob a bank and shoot everyone inside. After they leave, they dump the money by giving it to the Red Cross in hopes the evidence won't be traced to them. Now, you tell me if they had a good reason.

Yes, that would be permissible under this legislation. You have to understand the purpose of this proposal: It is to encourage donations. How the nation does that is broader than what is brought up in the proposal. If the nation supports donations, then they are completing its ultimate goal.

Thanks for asking! :)

OK, your arguments still need work, because each one has a fundamental flaw, except this one: Only if you assume people are not selfish, cruel, egotistical beings at heart. Hopefully you are not one of those people.

All a charity can do is try to help them out.
That is the primary goal of this proposal. Not exactly to create an incentive for people to donate as much as to encourage donations. By increasing donations, you can increase the possibility of a charity being able to help people out, which is always a good thing.

If people cannot donate for a good reason, then they shouldn't donate.
Everyone wants to donate for good reasons, but some people aren't economically capable. This legislation hopes to make more people able to make donations. Which are a good thing. You can't argue that.

A bunch of criminals, intent on just getting rid of a guy, rob a bank :mp5: and shoot everyone inside. After they leave, they dump the money by giving it to the Red Cross in hopes the evidence won't be traced to them. Now, you tell me if they had a good reason.
That's a criminal act, therefore, it is not a good reason. You tell me what percentage of all donations arrive that way and maybe I'll listen to this argument. Plus, why would they rob the bank if they were just going to get rid of the money before they could spend it?

Once again, as the author of this resolution, I would like to ask all UN Delegates who support it to please take an extra minute to endorse it. It would be greatly appreciated.

Sincerely,
North Duke

OK, your arguments still need work, because each one has a fundamental flaw, except this one: Hopefully you are not one of those people.

That assumes they are cruel, selfish, and egotistical? Of course. And I find human behavior to be unsurprising and easily explained as a result.

That is the primary goal of this proposal. Not exactly to create an incentive for people to donate as much as to encourage donations. By increasing donations, you can increase the possibility of a charity being able to help people out, which is always a good thing.

And you can increase people's reliance on charities, thereby decreasing their incentives to actively improve their lives. Which is a bad thing.

Now, stop and take a look at the number of charities devoted to helping the poor and stop and look at the percentage of the poor they have actually helped get to better lives. Then tell me where they have done any tangible good.

Everyone wants to donate for good reasons, but some people aren't economically capable. This legislation hopes to make more people able to make donations. Which are a good thing. You can't argue that.

Actually, I can.

Take your average corporation in real life. When they donate, they're not thinking about the good of the people. They're thinking about the tax break and the free PR campaign that can result. Many movie stars donate just for the public image it can help generate. Your average person on the street is more likely to donate out of guilt or want of a tax break, trying to get a personal benefit, instead of donating out of good will.

None of those are good reasons, no matter how you look at it.

That's a criminal act, therefore, it is not a good reason. You tell me what percentage of all donations arrive that way and maybe I'll listen to this argument. Plus, why would they rob the bank if they were just going to get rid of the money before they could spend it?

Did you read it? The robbing of the bank was a cover for killing someone they wanted to be rid of. A way to through the police off. The police will be looking for people spending massive amounts of money, not for people who were really out for murder.

The example was merely to point out that not all reasons are good ones. A rather extreme example, but one which disproves the idea that all donations have a good reason behind them by providing an example that doesn't. Look at it in context with what it was replying to and accept it when your point has been disproven instead of trying to find some way around accepting it.

This is the kind of debate the UN needs...

#1 - Now, stop and take a look at the number of charities devoted to helping the poor and stop and look at the percentage of the poor they have actually helped get to better lives. Then tell me where they have done any tangible good.
First off, if they help one person, they are a good charity (as long as they don't hurt anyone in the process). Second, the reason they haven't been successful enough is because they don't have the funding, because they don't have the donations.

#2 - And you can increase people's reliance on charities, thereby decreasing their incentives to actively improve their lives. Which is a bad thing.
I'm assuming you don't support welfare (one of the most successful social programs in history), becuase people might become dependent on welfare, and for the most part, they don't. Besides, the people who this charity is trying to help, they need to be dependent and reliant on someone, because in their current situation, they can't improve their lives. So they need help. And hopefully this proposal will help them get that help.

Take your average corporation in real life. When they donate, they're not thinking about the good of the people. They're thinking about the tax break and the free PR campaign that can result. Many movie stars donate just for the public image it can help generate. Your average person on the street is more likely to donate out of guilt or want of a tax break, trying to get a personal benefit, instead of donating out of good will.
How about the hundreds of thousands, maybe millions, of everyday citizens who donated to the tsunami relief effort? Was that for personal benefit? Was that for a tax break? You are making the assumption that everyone is as sadistic as you. ;)

A rather extreme example, but one which disproves the idea that all donations have a good reason behind them by providing an example that doesn't. Look at it in context with what it was replying to and accept it when your point has been disproven instead of trying to find some way around accepting it.
An interesting point of view, considering your "rather extreme example". Sounds like you needed a way to disprove my argument, because there wasn't a plausible example available, because very few exist!

Anyway, even if a donation had a bad reason, does that mean we should deny it (unless it was a criminal act, of course)? We should strongly discourage, but deny a chance to improve someone's standard of living? I think not.

This is the kind of debate the UN needs...

Agreed.

#1 -
First off, if they help one person, they are a good charity (as long as they don't hurt anyone in the process). Second, the reason they haven't been successful enough is because they don't have the funding, because they don't have the donations.

Actually, a government program in real life had the funding and still failed. It's called welfare.

#2 -
I'm assuming you don't support welfare (one of the most successful social programs in history), becuase people might become dependent on welfare, and for the most part, they don't. Besides, the people who this charity is trying to help, they need to be dependent and reliant on someone, because in their current situation, they can't improve their lives. So they need help. And hopefully this proposal will help them get that help.

You do realize the US government set a limit on welfare in response to the massive number of people who became dependent on it, right?

And if the people cannot improve their lives, that's a societal or personal problem, neither of which a charity can help. If it is societal, then you need to fix the society, not waste money on charity. If it is personal, then they deserve what they get and spending money on them is a waste. Either way, charity is not the solution.

How about the hundreds of thousands, maybe millions, of everyday citizens who donated to the tsunami relief effort? Was that a bad cause? Was that for a tax break? You are making the assumption that everyone is as sadistic as you. ;)

They're covered under the portion about guilt.

An interesting point of view, considering your "rather extreme example". Sounds like you needed a way to disprove my argument, because there wasn't a plausible example available, because very few exist!

Actually, the example was plausable. After all, if I thought of it off the top of my head in that five seconds, you must stop and wonder how many of the unsolved bank robberies in recent history were actually bank robberies and not covers for something else. Keep in mind that it's only successful if people don't know about it.

I did provide a list of real examples, several taken from personal experience, that are bad reasons to donate.

Anyway, even if a donation had a bad reason, does that mean we should deny it (unless it was a criminal act, of course)? We should strongly discourage, but deny a chance to improve someone's standard of living? I think not.

If it is for a bad reason, I see no reason to encourage it, no matter the reason. And considering the problems real life charities in the US have with a system that does give tax breaks for donating to charity, I don't see how this will actually help beyond giving another bad reason to donate.

Donations are a waste of time and money. I loath non-profit organizations and believe that they should risk thier necks in the free market of capitalism and corporations. I believe that the government should regulate and rule over so that nothing is unfair, but then again, if fairness was an issue then the Corperate lifestyle would not be very competitive and therefore be out of character.

Actually we don't have tax-deductable donations in TilEnca. Instead we let the charity keep the tax. So that not only do they get the donation, but we give them the extra tax on it (up to a certain value).

Would this be permissible under your proposal? Or would we have to stop doing this?

I don' tthink I got an answer to this last time, so I thought I would ask again.

Would your proposal passing deny money to the charities in my nation, instead giving it back to the people who donated in the first place?

see below for your answer til :) it was posted ealier up.

Yes, that would be permissible under this legislation. You have to understand the purpose of this proposal: It is to encourage donations. How the nation does that is broader than what is brought up in the proposal. If the nation supports donations, then they are completing its ultimate goal.

Thanks for asking! :)

see below for your answer til :) it was posted ealier up.

(thanks) It was a reply with no quote, so I had no idea if it was replying to me or to someone else.

Yes, that would be permissible under this legislation. You have to understand the purpose of this proposal: It is to encourage donations. How the nation does that is broader than what is brought up in the proposal. If the nation supports donations, then they are completing its ultimate goal.

Thanks for asking! :)

(OOC)
Here's the thing - I have no idea about taxes. I don't work for myself, and I really don't do enough to justify filling in my own tax returns. So I really am not sure what "tax deductable" means.

(IC)
But if it means that when (say) Mr Smith gives 100 gold pieces to a charity, and we have a tax rate of 5%, he gets 5 gold pieces back, then that is totally unacceptable, because instead we let the charity keep the 5 gold pieces, rather than taking them in to the government. So the government would end up paying people to donate money, which is both unnaffordable, and also not right.

So - can anyone explain how our system is in line with this, given that we don't believe people should get money back for donating (otherwise it is not a donation, is it?) and will not make us bankrupt the TilEncan government?

Tax-deductible means that if Mr. Smith earns 100 Gold Pieces, and the tax rate is 10%, he would pay 10 Gold Pieces in income tax. Under this legislation, Mr. Smith deducts what he donates from his income when he pays income taxes. Let's assume Mr. Smith donates 10 Gold Pieces from his earnings to a charity. Even though he earned 100 Gold Pieces, he only has to pay income tax on 90 of it since he donated 10. He would only pay 9 Gold Pieces in income tax.

This applies to your nation in that citizens would save money. No money is taken from the charities, and no money is given to the citizens. It just provides a little incentive to make it more affordable for less-affluent families and citizens to donate money.

I hope this answers your question!

Would you accept a proposal that encourages donations, but does not provide an incentive?

Anyway, back to rebutting your points:

Actually, a government program in real life had the funding and still failed. It's called welfare.
Welfare is not a good example. It helped pull the US out of a depression.

As you may know, one of the results of welfare was Social Security, one of the most successful social welfare programs in history. Not only does it support retirees, but it also supports the disabled, the spouses of the disabled, and those that have been forced into early retirement due to injury. With proper funding, it could be more successful than it already is.

And if the people cannot improve their lives, that's a societal or personal problem, neither of which a charity can help. If it is societal, then you need to fix the society, not waste money on charity. If it is personal, then they deserve what they get and spending money on them is a waste. Either way, charity is not the solution.
If it is a societal problem, charities are a necessity! The goal of a charity is to improve the lives of citizens. When you do that you make the standard of living higher. When you do that, you improve society as a whole.

There are very few situations in which poverty and hunger are caused by the person's actions directly. Most people who are helped by charities were born into poverty, and they had no control over what happened to them. Because of that, they know of no way to get themselves out of the mess they are in. Without charities, these people will be stuck in poverty for their entire lives. If you want starving, homeless people wandering the streets, then you need to rethink your morals.

They're covered under the portion about guilt.
Are you saying people donated to help the people in third world nations who were completely devestated by a natural disaster becuase they felt guilty? Do you think the entire world is that greedy? You think these people felt guilty that they weren't hit by a tsunami? Just a question, did you donate any money to the tsunami relief effort? If you did, did you do it out of guily?

I did provide a list of real examples, several taken from personal experience, that are bad reasons to donate.
Where?

If it is for a bad reason, I see no reason to encourage it, no matter the reason. And considering the problems real life charities in the US have with a system that does give tax breaks for donating to charity, I don't see how this will actually help beyond giving another bad reason to donate.
Explain how charities in the US are being hurt by tax-deductible donations, please.

You are inferring that most donations to charities are for bad reasons. In that case, should we censor every donation to real-life charities, get rid of the ones with bad reasons, and watch all American charities die off because of a lack of funds?

I don't think you understand the purpose of this legislation. It is to encourage donations. You are taking it too literaly. In retrospect, I should have put "The United Nations shall encourage" at the beginning of line 7. Are you against the wording of this proposal, or are you against donations?

Tax-deductible means that if Mr. Smith earns 100 Gold Pieces, and the tax rate is 10%, he would pay 10 Gold Pieces in income tax. Under this legislation, Mr. Smith deducts what he donates from his income when he pays income taxes. Let's assume Mr. Smith donates 10 Gold Pieces from his earnings to a charity. Even though he earned 100 Gold Pieces, he only has to pay income tax on 90 of it since he donated 10. He would only pay 9 Gold Pieces in income tax.

This applies to your nation in that citizens would save money. No money is taken from the charities, and no money is given to the citizens. It just provides a little incentive to make it more affordable for less-affluent families and citizens to donate money.

I hope this answers your question!

Firstly can I just say tax law is insane. But that's a whole other issue.

So - in my nation - Mr Smith earns 100 Gold pieces and the tax rate is ten-percent.

So he is taxed 10 gold pieces because of what he earned.

He donates 10 gold pieces of that to charity. So now he only pays 9 gold pieces in tax - if this proposal passes.

However in our system, if he donates 10 gold pieces to the charity, the government also gives the 1 gold piece tax (that would apply) to the charity as well, instead of keeping it to ourselves.

So under this proposal either the charity would lose one gold piece (because now we are not getting it from Mr Smith we can't give it to the charity) or our government would lose two gold pieces (because we give one to the charity, and we don't get one from Mr Smith).

Either way this does not make our situation better if this passes. Mr Smith will be better off, but the government will be two gold pieces down, or the charity will be one gold piece down. Which is not a lot, but multiply this by the population of nearly 700 million, and that is a LOT of money.

Would you accept a proposal that encourages donations, but does not provide an incentive?

Yes.

Anyway, back to rebutting your points:


Welfare is not a good example. It helped pull the US out of a depression.

No, World War 2 helped pull the US out of the Great Depression. Welfare was just a temporary bandaid that was failing even when it first started, and only became worse as time passed.

As you may know, one of the results of welfare was Social Security, one of the most successful social welfare programs in history. Not only does it support retirees, but it also supports the disabled, the spouses of the disabled, and those that have been forced into early retirement due to injury. With proper funding, it could be more successful than it already is.

Due the how the US health system is set up, social security is not something I would depend on in the near future. It has been repeatedly raped of funds and is now in the situation of facing the fact that soon there will be more people drawing from it than there will be paying in. The US population as a whole is aging, and the only solutions to the upcomming problem are solutions the public doesn't want to support. It's pretty much a failure as well, but this time due to an unforseen side-effect of medical technology and republics in general.

If it is a societal problem, charities are a necessity! The goal of a charity is to improve the lives of citizens. When you do that you make the standard of living higher. When you do that, you improve society as a whole.

Actually, they are a waste of money that is incapable of solving the problem and are not even capable of putting a bandaid on it if it is a societal problem. Charities in nations with societal problems that cause it cannot actually improve the lives of the people they are targetting because the very society itself doesn't want them to. That's part of the problem in the US with the poor.

Also, making the standard of living higher merely means you create more poor people. You have to keep in mind all of the standards will go up nearly at the same time while most people's lives won't improve, forcing more people down an economic level.

There are very few situations in which poverty and hunger are caused by the person's actions directly. Most people who are helped by charities were born into poverty, and they had no control over what happened to them. Because of that, they know of no way to get themselves out of the mess they are in. Without charities, these people will be stuck in poverty for their entire lives. If you want starving, homeless people wandering the streets, then you need to rethink your morals.

You just described a societal problem, one which charities are incapable of fixing. And pretty much all of them are still stuck in poverty their entire lives anyway, despite charities. You have to keep in mind my nation is set up to where the only reason you could be in poverty is if the decisions of either you or your parents put you there, and if it is your parents then you remaining in poverty is a result of your decisions.

Are you saying people donated to help the people in third world nations who were completely devestated by a natural disaster becuase they felt guilty?

Yes. Have you seen the commercials that try to get donations? They work on the guilt trip factor.

Do you think the entire world is that greedy?

Think? I know it is. We've got a history of thousands of years of being that way and modern actions don't suggest humanity has actually improved in those thousands of years. Hell, take a look at how nations treat each other. The US, for example, usually gives nothing to other countries without some strings attached or some ulterior motive or personal gain in mind, and the US prides itself on its charity to others. If nations are willing to treat each other this way, imagine how the common people are.

You think these people felt guilty that they weren't hit by a tsunami?

Actually, yes. I wouldn't be surprised in the least if that's exactly why most of them donated. Keep in mind I work in advertising and have had the displeasure of finding out how sleazy some of these charities, and even many corporations, can be.

Just a question, did you donate any money to the tsunami relief effort? If you did, did you do it out of guily?

I don't give out information on what I have donated and when. It strikes me as a case of people trying to make themselves feel superior by bragging about how much they have donated.

But I can say I didn't donate out of guilt. I honestly don't care that much about the people who were affected by it.

Where?

Two of my posts back.

Explain how charities in the US are being hurt by tax-deductible donations, please.

They're not. But they're not being helped by it either.

You are inferring that most donations to charities are for bad reasons. In that case, should we censor every donation to real-life charities, get rid of the ones with bad reasons, and watch all American charities die off because of a lack of funds?

Most American charities die off from lack of funds anyway. You just don't hear about it as often due to it not being "news worthy." It's the rare ones that actually survive for any real length of time, and most of those have been established for years. And even still, it takes a disaster before the charities that do survive to come anywhere near the amount of funding they require.

I don't think you understand the purpose of this legislation. It is to encourage donations. You are taking it too literaly. In retrospect, I should have put "The United Nations shall encourage" at the beginning of line 7. Are you against the wording of this proposal, or are you against donations?

I don't think you understand my point. Intentions matter as much as actions. If you wish something to be considered a good deed, it must be done for the right reasons in the right way.

I am not against donations. I am against giving tax breaks for them. If people truly are kind at heart, they need no incentive and can find a way to donate even small amounts. If people need incentives, then they are not good at heart and are doing it for the wrong reasons. This is a bit of a moralistic view, but in the case of dealing with charity I find it to be one worth considering.