The general decline in standards today

[LizzieMaine]

Just curious LizzieMaine, do you attend church regularly, and if so, what kind? I can't imagine any church that would not expect tithing, under Mosaic Law or not.
I don't tithe either, but then I don't go to church. If I did, I'd probably be compelled to put something in the plate when it was passed.

I'm a Methodist, and have never been told I had to contribute any particular amount. I'll put something in the plate when it comes around, but the amount is between me and God and nobody else. A literal ten-percent assessment of the congregation isn't anything we teach or require. Some interesting thoughts on the Methodist view of tithing can be found here.

The modern emphasis on a literal ten-percent tithe as taught by many contemporary Evangelistic denominations goes back to an early-twentieth-century Anglican clergyman named Henry Lansdell, who wrote a lengthy treatise encouraging the practice, and it caught on in many denominations as a way of ensuring a steady revenue stream.

 

[1961MJS]

My comments on charity are about the voluntary help a person provides to others. This has nothing to do with government programs and taxes. The pros and cons of government programs is another issue.
I understand there are people who do not have the extra income to give. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that. Charities need volunteer time as much as money.
I respect equally someone who helps a neighbor lug groceries from the shop as I do one who writes a check.

I agree that your comments didn't include the Government, but people's attitudes towards the that voluntary help does in many cases. Not a dig on the rich, very rich, poor, or anybody else really. There's a line in everyone's budget where you start to watch every dollar no matter how many of the $ you have.

WRT your last comment, I agree completely. Time is $, but in general the time is a better investment when you're helping someone.

Later

 

[sheeplady]

Charity is something you don't have to do, but choose to do on your own. Taxes aren't charity. I'm kinda disturbed anyone could see paying their taxes as doing something charitable. But, unlike most people in the United States, I'm a huge supporter of both a government sponsored safety net AND private charity.

There are limits to government services (at least in the U.S.). There are plenty of people who fall through the cracks one way or another. Plenty of people on food stamps sometimes don't have enough to eat, good clothes to wear, etc. because food stamps aren't often that much and are often the only thing you qualify for if you are working. Other individuals are in rural or inner city areas without grocery stores and no public transportation. Lots of these people don't have access to a choice of grocery stores and the food they can find is often expensive. Food stamps also don't pay for things like toilet paper. For these people, food pantries, clothing donations, etc. are indispensable.

A lot of what my family tries to do is aimed towards children, although not all. If a child shows up to school without their needed supplies or goes hungry over the weekend I don't care if that's because their family spends all their money on booze or if they are destitute. The child is going to do a lot better in life if they are given a pencil and fed than if not. They have a much greater chance in life, particularly of being productive contributing members of society, if they are taken care of by somebody. Besides, if a family spends all their money on booze and doesn't take care of their kid, I doubt that kid's home life is that great. Abusive parents who aren't motivated by their kids being hungry or without needed things to change their ways aren't going to be "shaped up" by denying their kid food or supplies from charity.

 

[LizzieMaine]

Charity is something you don't have to do, but choose to do on your own. Taxes aren't charity. I'm kinda disturbed anyone could see paying their taxes as doing something charitable. But, unlike most people in the United States, I'm a huge supporter of both a government sponsored safety net AND private charity.

I think a lot of people don't realize how badly private charity fared in meeting the crisis of the Depression -- there simply wasn't enough of it to go around, and many communities resorted to punitive measures to keep "paupers" under control -- the process of obtaining assistance was purposely made as degrading and debasing as possible to ensure that only the most desperate citizens received it. In some towns, "public assistance" was doled out in the form of a "nutritious" slurry distilled from five-gallon cans of restaurant garbage. Even under these conditions, private charity during the worst stretch of the Depression -- the winter of 1932-33 -- was unable to keep up.

Agenda-oriented revisionist historians will cook up their own facts out of their own five-gallon cans -- the "crowd out" theory for example -- but those who actually *were* unemployed adults in early 1933 remembered it as it was.

 

[GHT]

On the other hand, (double entry) accounting is something that was invented by people who burned witches and believed the sun revolved around the Earth . . .

You mean they don't? Hells bells, you will be telling me next that the earth ain't flat.

Double entry accounting? Is that where you prove that we have eleven digits on our hands by holding them up, fingers outstretched, counting down on one hand, thus: Ten, nine, eight, seven, six...............and then holding up the other hand and say: "And five's eleven?"

 

[GHT]

Not being under the Mosaic Law, I don't tithe. I support my community directly, thru direct volunteer activities and contributions to organizations I support.

Back in the late 1960's I lived in a predominantly jewish area of East London. The local Rabbi was quite a character. On hearing how the catholic priest took from the collection by drawing a circle, tossing the collection money in the air, and all that landed within the circle was God's. and all that landed outside the circle, he kept. And then he heard that the Anglican vicar did something similar, except that all that landed outside the circle was God's and all within the circle he kept.

The Rabbi put them wise: "Toss it in the air," he told them, "and then say to God: Take what you want!"

 

[jamespowers]

Back in the late 1060's I lived in a predominantly jewish area of East London. The local Rabbi was quite a character. On hearing how the catholic priest took from the collection by drawing a circle, tossing the collection money in the air, and all that landed within the circle was God's. and all that landed outside the circle, he kept. And then he heard that the Anglican vicar did something similar, except that all that landed outside the circle was God's and all within the circle he kept.

The Rabbi put them wise: "Toss it in the air," he told them, "and then say to God: Take what you want!"

1060s?! Wow! You have been around longer than I thought!

 

[GHT]

1060s?! Wow! You have been around longer than I thought!

CRAFT moment!

 

[Zombie_61]

CRAFT moment!

I think it's more of a "must remember to proofread before posting" moment.

 

[GHT]

No, it's definitely a CRAFT moment.

 

[LizzieMaine]

So what was Harold of Wessex really like?

 

[sheeplady]

I think a lot of people don't realize how badly private charity fared in meeting the crisis of the Depression -- there simply wasn't enough of it to go around, and many communities resorted to punitive measures to keep "paupers" under control -- the process of obtaining assistance was purposely made as degrading and debasing as possible to ensure that only the most desperate citizens received it. In some towns, "public assistance" was doled out in the form of a "nutritious" slurry distilled from five-gallon cans of restaurant garbage. Even under these conditions, private charity during the worst stretch of the Depression -- the winter of 1932-33 -- was unable to keep up\

Agenda-oriented revisionist historians will cook up their own facts out of their own five-gallon cans -- the "crowd out" theory for example -- but those who actually *were* unemployed adults in early 1933 remembered it as it was.

The huge issue I see with a private-only system is that I don't think nearly enough revenue would be raised. If taxes are 40% of your income (not quite and most benefits are not taxed) how many people would give 40% of their income to charity if they were not taxed at all? I doubt even most people would give 20%... after all, how many people who are upper-middle class or above give even 10% of their income to charity? Besides the fact that some private charities are "selective" in who they give services to... something which really irritates me.

But again, given the current state of the government system and the current economy there is a desperate need for private charities to fill the gaps. But like anything else, you need to do your research. I'm very very selective who my money goes to.

 

[GHT]

So what was Harold of Wessex really like?

Well he was a Saxon, when I told him about the Norman upstart, called William, he said:
I'll keep an eye out for him!"

 

[LizzieMaine]

But again, given the current state of the government system and the current economy there is a desperate need for private charities to fill the gaps. But like anything else, you need to do your research. I'm very very selective who my money goes to.

I think the best charities are the ones right in your own town -- the benefit suppers for people struck by unexpected illness, or who've been burned out of their homes, or are facing some other unexpected crisis. Look at any public bulletin board in any small town and there's plenty of places where people can make a difference. That's where the money is most needed, and that's the sort of thing the high rollers whose philanthropy is a means to a tax deduction never seem to notice.

 

[vintageTink]

There are a lot of wealthy people who give time and money to charity. I'm not entitled to their money and I would never tell someone they have an obligation to hand their earnings over to me.

So are you indeed advocating taxing people to force them to give, sheeplady? Taxing 40% wouldn't be enough? What would be? Shall we completely take a persons paycheck and distribute it equally amongst everyone? I believe the saying for that is "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need."
I have no right to force anyone to give to charity. Neither does the government, if that's what you're saying.
I grew up with my "parents" on food stamps and state assistance, refusing to work. They also went to food banks and took advantage of others' charity and good will. I was so embarrassed handing over paper foodstamps, receiving disapproving glances from others.
And we received help, not because the dad or step-monster worked hard and didn't earn enough; they didn't work at all. I felt like I was stealing from others. It might have been different had they tried and just needed help. They didn't try at all.
I have a deep-seated aversion to forcing others to support me.

 

[1961MJS]

The huge issue I see with a private-only system is that I don't think nearly enough revenue would be raised. If taxes are 40% of your income (not quite and most benefits are not taxed) how many people would give 40% of their income to charity if they were not taxed at all? I doubt even most people would give 20%... after all, how many people who are upper-middle class or above give even 10% of their income to charity? Besides the fact that some private charities are "selective" in who they give services to... something which really irritates me.

But again, given the current state of the government system and the current economy there is a desperate need for private charities to fill the gaps. But like anything else, you need to do your research. I'm very very selective who my money goes to.

Hi

PERSONALLY, I think that the best charity is local. The more that you see someone in need, the more likely you are to give to those that actually need food, money, and shelter. Its also more likely that those who game the system will quickly lose the game and start becoming self sufficient. I've had several relatives over the years that got pretty good at the game.

Later

 

[AtomicEraTom]

Well put. That's always been my belief is help the people in your community, not some faceless organization.

Charity should be something that only YOU know how much you gave and should not be compulsory. If you don't wanna give, you're the one who has to live with yourself every day.

I think the best charities are the ones right in your own town -- the benefit suppers for people struck by unexpected illness, or who've been burned out of their homes, or are facing some other unexpected crisis. Look at any public bulletin board in any small town and there's plenty of places where people can make a difference. That's where the money is most needed, and that's the sort of thing the high rollers whose philanthropy is a means to a tax deduction never seem to notice.

 

[sheeplady]

There are a lot of wealthy people who give time and money to charity. I'm not entitled to their money and I would never tell someone they have an obligation to hand their earnings over to me.

So are you indeed advocating taxing people to force them to give, sheeplady? Taxing 40% wouldn't be enough? What would be? Shall we completely take a persons paycheck and distribute it equally amongst everyone? I believe the saying for that is "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need."
I have no right to force anyone to give to charity. Neither does the government, if that's what you're saying.
I grew up with my "parents" on food stamps and state assistance, refusing to work. They also went to food banks and took advantage of others' charity and good will. I was so embarrassed handing over paper foodstamps, receiving disapproving glances from others.
And we received help, not because the dad or step-monster worked hard and didn't earn enough; they didn't work at all. I felt like I was stealing from others. It might have been different had they tried and just needed help. They didn't try at all.
I have a deep-seated aversion to forcing others to support me.

While no one may have a right to my money, I do strongly believe that I have the right to give my money freely as I wish.

If you believe that the majority of your taxes go towards what most would consider "charitable" means (public assistance, food stamps, etc.), then you are (sadly) mistaken. Most of your hard-earned tax dollars go to defense spending (and that's not troops wages, either). However, I do believe strongly in a social safety net. As I've said before, it's either a belief you have or you don't. I come from a world where if you see someone down and out you help them anyway you can and I happen to believe the government has a role in that. But then, I happen to believe in nationalized single-payer healthcare too.

Parents like yours sound like the type that honestly wouldn't feed their kids if not for public assistance and private charity. Embarrassment doesn't motivate them. Their children not having enough to eat doesn't motivate them. Having seen many abusive parents in my time, I honestly think and know that if not for public assistance and private charity, many of these Grade A Arseholes wouldn't even feed their kids at all. The ones that suffer in those circumstances are the kids. Given your example, seeing your parents made you work hard and be determined to be better. If you had starved to death or been so malnourished (which, your parents might not have been the type to do this, but many are) that you couldn't function well in school or had to take to crime to feed yourself and your siblings, I doubt you would have the ability to support yourself.

I'd have no problem being taxed more if, for instance, more of my taxes went towards things like a national healthcare system (because all of us with healthcare plans paid for by our employers would get paid more since they aren't paying for healthcare) and universal pre-school. Heck, I'd even support making post-secondary programs (trade-school and college) low or no cost. But that's what I think is best. Obviously many people in this country don't agree with me. So, I give my money (as much as I can) to strengthen the private side of the social safety net.

ETA:
Long story short: I'd have no problem being taxed more if those taxes could ensure no one (particularly no helpless minor) in my country ever was cold, hungry, homeless, or lacked a basic education. However, I know my tax money would go likely go elsewhere.

 

[vintageTink]

My parents were the type that would not feed us if there wasn't public assistance. But they did a lot of stuff to us out of the public eye.

I could have chosen crime to help myself. But I chose NOT to be that way. I believe everyone who grew up the way I did (dirt poor and abused) has a choice as to how they live. Crime is a choice.
But that's another thread.

We struggle but I still don't believe the government should be part of a safety net of any sort. It is not the government's job to take care of me. They're overreaching as it is.
I do have a problem being taxed more to take care of people like my parents.

 

[sheeplady]

My parents were the type that would not feed us if there wasn't public assistance. But they did a lot of stuff to us out of the public eye.

I could have chosen crime to help myself. But I chose NOT to be that way. I believe everyone who grew up the way I did (dirt poor and abused) has a choice as to how they live. Crime is a choice.
But that's another thread.

We struggle but I still don't believe the government should be part of a safety net of any sort. It is not the government's job to take care of me. They're overreaching as it is.
I do have a problem being taxed more to take care of people like my parents.

As far as turning to crime, my point was that if children are not fed, often they take to stealing food and/or other things to buy food that they need to survive. That hurts everyone- it turns hungry children into criminals in the judicial system AND hurts the people who are stolen from. Stealing food is a crime (legally at least- morally is another question). That is the sort of crime I'm referring to, not other crime. (I've known, unfortunately, more than one child who was chronically starved/ severely hungry. People go a bit batty when they are chronically malnourished.)

However, at the opposite end of the spectrum from your parents you have people like one of my former participants. She grew up in public housing (her parents moved to the first public housing in her city). She moved back into public housing as an adult to care for her aging mother until she died. She then, unfortunately, had a series of life events that put her back into public housing (she was in a car accident that left her partially disabled, the victim of a very violent crime, widowed, lost her livelihood due to PTSD from the crime, retrained, but never made as much money- all in a period of less than 2 years). Along the way she raised five kids.

Those five kids are (in birth order): a surgeon, a sheriff's deputy, a former nurse who is now a stay-at-home mom, a decorated city police officer, and a high school teacher. All have probably paid back in taxes at least 50 times the amount of money that it took to house them, feed them, and educate them- and they are nowhere near retirement.

I'd say that was a damned good investment to turn out five professionals. That's the way I look at it.