The tax system would have to deepen deductibility for donations to devolve welfare's work to charities. A third-sector system could be created consisting of charity banks to manage the funds, or to grant the funds to charitable orgs. Churches and charities are too susceptible to fraud, usurpery and corruption. Probably more so than the government's system. Maybe that 3rd sector could help with that.
Private enterprise would be the sole collector of the funds from religousprg., charitable org. , unionss, corporations and tax credits from IRS. as well as personal donations. They would work as "fo profit oganizations."
This is confusing.. the sole collector
for or
from? Not trying to nitpick but I dont get how
from works. I am also dumbfounded by the idea of a donation-based for-profit organization. What are they turning a profit on, buddy? Isn't the point that profittaking moochers are purged from the system? Charities mooch hard as it is.
The government also tracks constituents, and has better access to tax info etc to make sure needies are really needy. Fraudulent needies can also spend their days going from charity to charity, so there will have to be a private system of tracking individuals' activities in the charity-space. Who would like that type of private tracking? Not all charities would even dig participation/administration on such a tracking system. Lord, if you thought exploitation of welfare among illegal immigrants is bad with the government administrating this...
Since there would be on clearing house orchestrating the service, there would not by the needy going from charity to charity. This clearing house would track each individual, seek employment for the needy first, then track their paymnents with lower paying employment and/or education to fulfill the requirements of receiving welfare. Illegal immigrants would not be eligible.
Presuming the clearinghouse is a business... they could run this system however they want. When we declared welfare to work, it was law and the govt orgs implemented that. Private charities would probably specialize and employ their own theories to charitable service. This is a free-market system, so they'd need lots of room to diversify and compete for the attention of donors. They'll probably specialize: hunger, disability, housing, victims of.., education, employment, etc. This is how they are now. Charities tend to illegals now.. amnestia, immigration assistance, social svcs. The government could not stop them from using dollars for certain people. If you think that's possible, you'd have to explain how, while maintaining the free-market goal of this conversion.
Lots of big holes in the chances for this charity based welfare thing.
I was sleepy last night and forgot to mention that massive amounts of charitable aid will go to
advertisement and
fundraising, as is the nature of charities.
It would be a shame to see charitable dollars shifting to the private social safety-net sector and away from Jerry's kids and the WMKeck foundation, etc. If all charities were offered equal deductibility, the safety-net charities would probably struggle for funds... struggle for mine anyhow.
Since the government would no longer be in the entitlement business, our taxes would be lower, giving each individual a chance to give to the needy and other charities with their new found fortune.
What makes taxes lower? I presume (all external factors remaining constant) the same tax liability with less
net tax liability for people who donate to deductible orgs. Whichever the case, the govt uses stats and things to target specific folks with welfare support. Any charities displacing that will have to compete for donations with existing charities. I would think nothing would change, and other charities related to health concerns would dominate the charityfare market.
The biggest dividend of welfare is that it does add demand into a sweet-spot in the economy. That spot will suffer, taking the economy with it. Freedom to select goods within the market would be expressed by charities instead of needies, and probably at the wholesale level... potentially at the irregular/out-of-date level. Needies would probably end up eating what they're given and wasting what they don't care to consume. Needy kids would get toys they didn't want more often.
The privitizing approach to welfare keeps the fraud out, and keeps the needy to focus on jobs first and truly a hand up instead of incentivizing welfare being a a way of life. No longer would those accepting welfare be getting more than they earn and instead be part of the tax system because they are fist and foremost required to participate in in employment before accepting hand outs for no work at all.
I think that you are just saying that all of this great stuff will happen, but I dont see a free-market charityfare system precluding way-of-life beneficiaries for any reason. I dont see where for-profit, decentralization, or free-market are inherently less corrupt or fraud-proof. Can you explain how your jobs miracle would actually function? I don't see charities bolstering that just because they are businesses. A charity bases their fundraising on their beneficiaries needs, and will tout, as they do now, a mass of needies for the according $ympathy. Sure, these populations will overlap (charity-hopping referenced above). For-profit or non-profit, I dont think there's a market force to make charities blow the whistle on that themselves.
There's probably more to this, but I would go after the welfare state differently. This seems like a good-sounding proposal until further review. It sounds like a recipe for an africonomy: fraud, corruption and charities. I don't see a total devolution either. I don't see a change in consciousness between the welfare constituent or charityfare constituent, moreover.
Each state would be servicing their own clearing house for welfare, receiving the federal funds that citizens have earmarked given to welfare for their state in their federal tax returns. It would operate "as profit" to ensure its viability to service the population, in the manner that the neediest abled bodied welfare recipients goal are to find gainful employment first, education second, and a financial hand up, third.
States, now? What servicing? There is even less uniformity with state-by-state ombudsmanship. This is getting wacky now. Interstate fraud-fest predicted here.
Oh... an earmarking system. That's a big-league fail for me. My goal would be to never give Sam the dough in the first place. If you do... by far and away... Sam might as well give it to the people themselves. We already have charities mooching off the fed and local govts... and they're non-profits. Could you imagine if this was for profittaking!?!?
So profitable companies accessing the largess as you propose, respectfully, is a disastrous plan. Undoubtedly these charitable entities will defraud the public like every other subsidized sector seems to.
