Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Yes: rewards charity and gives and incentive to do that, bu may make people do it mainly for the rewards

No: makes charity more close to actual charity, but less people will help out and it might not be fair

My opinion:

Reward children for that early on, but as time goes on hopefully the children will have turned out to be good and, combined with being used to helping others to a reasonable degree, would help out to a reasonable level without having a personal monetary incentive.

There isn't a perfect answer, but I think that the best answer would be in between the two extremes.

Sorry, typed on iPod touch.

No, because when people give charity as a tax write-off, it compromises their "good" intentions.

I also don't think community service should be used as a legal punishment. Slapping a person with fines and restitution is an actual punishment that hits them where it hurts--the wallet. Having to pick up trash on the side of the highway and anger management doesn't do a damn thing.

should the government give money to people who give money to organizations that are doing what the state should do?

Well it would close the circle.

Originally posted by inimalist
should the government give money to people who give money to organizations that are doing what the state should do?

The question should be what should the state do.


I suppose one could not let them be taxed, that may be fair enough, but ultimately that seems to create a lot of bother and perhaps even unjust dealings.

Whether people or parents or whoever decide to reward someone for doing good deeds is up to them, imo, sure, why not?

So my answer is a absolute and totally certain "maybe".

I think they should.

Originally posted by inimalist
should the government give money to people who give money to organizations that are doing what the state should do?

You mean take less money away from people who give money and time to organizations that are doing what the state shouldn't have do, right?


I fully expect someone to say, "Excuse, ddm, but your libertarianism is showing. Bumblebee tuna!"

If this is really being posed as a moral question: No.

Originally posted by Mindship
If this is really being posed as a moral question: No.

And by definition, wouldn't it NOT be a charity if the person is being rewarded?

That would technically be a business transaction.

No, it will only encourage people to be helpful.

i say no only b/c it would be unfair and not equal...

if ppl want to help that is fine but they shouldnt be rewarded for their actions, the bases for charity is to be selfless..

hence, if rewarded it wouldnt be charity since you are gaining from it.

personally i say, yes. but, in the view of democracy and treating ppl fairly and equally i say no..

is it charitable to buy a PS3? i mean you just help a bunch of ppl feed their family with that one act..

The reward for sacrificing for the needy is received as soon as the sacrifice is made. It's something that you feel when you know that your contribution made a real difference to someone else. You'd have to experience it personally to know what I mean.

These things shouldn't be seen as rewards but incorporated into everyday society. It shouldn't have to be for some sort of acheivement, and with proper education this can be done.

Also, like the Zapitistas in Mexico, these sorts of things should be "punishments" for wrong doings. For example, if you had committed arson you would have to help build or re-build the building you burned down, or do something else to help benefit the community as a whole.

Is it even charity if you get compensated?

Also last I checked charity does carry monetary rewards: tax write-offs for one.

There's already programs out there like, Americrops that reward charity work. I think it's a great idea to give some type of reward for donating time and care. As to what the reward should be, well that is a very good question. Although some of these programs give a small financial reward the rewards are usually distributed as grants that can be used towards debts or tuition for school. I would like to see more programs like, Americrops. It is a great alternative to military service and although some people join just for the reward they come out with invaluable leadership skills and self confidence they never had. I spent two years in Americorps and they were easily the two best years of my life

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
No, because when people give charity as a tax write-off, it compromises their "good" intentions.

I also don't think community service should be used as a legal punishment. Slapping a person with fines and restitution is an actual punishment that hits them where it hurts--the wallet. Having to pick up trash on the side of the highway and anger management doesn't do a damn thing. Yea but if nobody donates, the government does it, which comes in the form of... taxes. I love giving, but receiving a write off for it doesn't hurt. Giving just to receive a write off is silly though. Giving does come back to you though. I've said that again and again.

No i don't think that people should be rewarded for their charity.

A grant wouldn't be a bad idea, but it would have to be random and chosen by an interested party, not just standard issue, that isn't charity. That's welfare, there is a difference.

Originally posted by Tha C-Master
A grant wouldn't be a bad idea, but it would have to be random and chosen by an interested party, not just standard issue, that isn't charity. That's welfare, there is a difference.

Not if you dislike welfare and love rational thought there isn't.

Originally posted by inimalist
should the government give money to people who give money to organizations that are doing what the state should do?

I don't think the state should...in the first place.

I don't think that the state should necessarily give money, but to not tax people for the activities they do for the good of the community, that seems fair enough really.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Not if you dislike welfare and love rational thought there isn't. Howso? If you had a hard time and you came to me and I assisted you in some way as you got back on your feet, that's charity. Warmth and attachment behind my giving (as cheesy as that sounds) you know it is a gift. Welfare from people's checks has no type of intimacy and the recipients often feel entitled to it. All I was saying is that if someone wanted to help say a teenagers college out for giving, that isn't a bad idea. But not making it a reason to give on its own. Because then the selflessness is missing.

Originally posted by Tha C-Master
Howso? If you had a hard time and you came to me and I assisted you in some way as you got back on your feet, that's charity. Warmth and attachment behind my giving (as cheesy as that sounds) you know it is a gift. Welfare from people's checks has no type of intimacy and the recipients often feel entitled to it. All I was saying is that if someone wanted to help say a teenagers college out for giving, that isn't a bad idea. But not making it a reason to give on its own. Because then the selflessness is missing.

The complaints I've heard against welfare are less "it's too cold", more "it causes people to become lazy". Charity has the exact same problem, you get money for nothing. If you help someone they no longer desire to do anything, empirical evidence to the opposite be damned.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
The complaints I've heard against welfare are less "it's too cold", more "it causes people to become lazy". Charity has the exact same problem, you get money for nothing. If you help someone they no longer desire to do anything, empirical evidence to the opposite be damned.

Perhaps the argument is more that it gives already lazy people a chance to be lazy, rather than making non-lazy people magically lazy.



And Welfare can very well be an entitlement, just like unemployment benefits, after all we all pay into that as an insurance that if we fall on hard times we do have a safety. Which is not to say that there isn't abuse of the system, there definitely is, but in essence insurance like government set ups are surely the more noble and useful things that government provides.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
The complaints I've heard against welfare are less "it's too cold", more "it causes people to become lazy". Charity has the exact same problem, you get money for nothing. If you help someone they no longer desire to do anything, empirical evidence to the opposite be damned. Maybe if it is done on a larger scale it could. That is why I don't give to those who are lazy, even brother and sister. I just won't do it; I had to bleed to start my company. However helping someone on their luck who is trying is different. Even the best have had help here and then. Honestly I'm more in favor of communities trying to help each other out over a government check doing it. There's nothing there. Back then the strongest survived and the weak perished, if one couldn't they were weak. Being broke is the lack of money; being poor is the mindset that keeps someone in lack, whether it is health, wealth, or relationships. There will always be poor amongst us. There are some that no matter what you do, they are always struggling. That is them and their decisions. I've seen it time and time again and I grew up in a poor are and now I live waaay beyond that. Talk to the people there and it's nothing but excuses for themselves. You should have a hard time briefly, but those who continuously go through it need to look at what choices they make.