If you make over $150k household income US, will you give up 10% for the greater good?

Sure, I would, but in order to make this question both palatable and more mathematically sound I’d suggest specifying 10% over and above the bracket of 150k.

In other words, your first 150k you don’t contribute, but every dollar you earn after that, 10% gets redistributed.

Otherwise you get into a situation where someone who makes 149k ends up with more money than someone who makes 151k, which is just confusing.

On the surface, sure. But if it actually happened, I’d have to look at how much money was being brought in, how it was being distributed, and what if any controls are being placed on its expenditure by those it provides for before I’d commit. Not to mention making sure the fund can’t be looted for other purposes.

So those making over 150k are still paying their taxes as usual, then they give an additional 10% to everyone that has an income below 150k? Even those folks who earn 145k?
You say that it is household income, so spouses and kids earnings are lumped together? Or is it just spouses? Are family size and circumstances taken into account? The single person treated the same as the family of 8? So does the family size of those giving and those receiving matter?
I have no idea how many people make over 150k a year, so this could be very little additional money given to those making less, or it might be a larger chunk of cash added to a poorer families income.
Could the money be spent in any way the receiver wants? On drugs ? alcohol? food? education? entertainment? Are there any controls in place.

No, because I don’t want other people managing my money. There’s enough corruption already. We don’t make that much, but we already donate about 15% of our income. It’s better to be able to fund the projects you want to.

@snowberry, if you make more than 150k, you are in fact “making that much.” That’s more money than most Americans will ever dream of having, let alone most human beings.

The way the current tax rates are, likely not since I will already be forking over 30–35%.

Increase it tenfold to where much of my income is taxed at only 15%, dropping my effective tax rate into the 20s, then yes.

$150k doesn’t mean what it used to. Sure, it means that you earn more than 90% of Americans, but in a neo-feudalism society where 95% of people are serfs, it’s a distinction without difference.

@Qingu If I were making that much, I’d donate even more. We’d donate more right now, but we are paying off college loans on 4 people.

Edit: It doesn’t matter to me HOW much money I’d make, I’d always, always choose which charities gets my money.

You guys are getting very technical about it all, I thought that might happen. Of course the guy making $149k will not wind up making more than the original people making just $150k, we would make sure of it. About @Qingu suggestion of only taking the 10% out of dollars over $150k I have to think about it, that was not how I originally thought of it, but I do see the logic there.

You won’t get to decide how the funds are spent by the other people who receive it. Let’s assume there is a guarantee no monies are lost, it isn’t the government taking the money and giving it out, it is the employers, cutting the pay of the higher income earners and adding it to the salaries of the lower income. An assumption that the company does not skim any one of the money. It might not be an exercise that will actually work in the real world possibly, due to loopholes and people being dishonest in how they carry it out. But, as an abstract idea what do you think? I don’t mind people discussing specifics and how it might really work, it’s interesting, but it wasn’t my original intent when I wrote the question.

I thought 2% of the people earn 98% of the income? Or, something like that? Seems like the numbers might be possible? Household income is how we judge it now, which is typically the adults living in the home.

@snowberry You would donate more if you weren’t paying off college loans. But, you are paying off college loans. Who else would be managing your money? It is no longer your money. The money is being paid out to someone else.

@JLeslie I’m not sure of your statistics, maybe they are correct, but 150k doesn’t seem to me like you are wealthy in the yacht buying, jet setting sort of way. If you have a large family I imagine you might be just making ends meet.
Even at 250k it looks like you might not be able to live an extremely cushy life.

@JLeslie, what I’ve described is how the tax system actually works. Unfortunately a lot of people don’t realize that this is how the tax system works, so you get people worried they’ll end up paying more in taxes if they make more money. Actually, no… you only ever pay the higher rate on the money you make over and above the bracket cut off.

Also, the top 2% do not control 98% of wealth! I forgot the figures, but it wasn’t that asymmetrical. iirc it was the top 10% controlling almost 90% of the productive wealth, though less for housing wealth (which hasn’t been too productive of late).

@wilma, sorry, but no. The poverty cutoff for a family of four is just shy of 20k. That is just making ends meet.

Making 150k is well, well above “making ends meet,” unless we are talking about a fundamentalist mormon family of 30 people or something.

So basically those who make over 150K will be getting a pay cut and those who make less will get a raise with the money saved. The devil’s in the details however, as a basic concept, I’d be willing to support it and explore it further.

@wilma how large must a family be to have 150k be “just making ends meet? I have to admit that my jaw dropped a bit when I read that response. A family making 150k may not be jet-setting owners of real estate all over the world, but they are certainly not just squeaking by. At 250k one might not be able to live a super cushy life, but I can almost guarantee that family will know where their next meal is coming from, doesn’t have to buy clothes at the Goodwill, can afford health insurance, and can get new shoes whenever they need them.

I have been in the position of making plenty of money and I would have willingly given a percentage to help those less well off. I would absolutely give a percentage of my income to be redistributed to help narrow the gap between the wealthy and the destitute. I understand that this debate is purely academic, but I have to say that I would have to trust the folks doing the redistribution.

@JLeslie, for clarification, do you mean earners (individual, joint filers, head of household filers, business etc.) with adjusted gross incomes $150,000 and above, or pretax $150,000 and above?

@JLeslie I am also paying on a house, car, clothes, medical bills, food, utilities, and so on. I choose who I pay for those items and services. What difference does that make? But regardless of how much money I make, or might make, I also choose to pick which charities I donate to “for the greater good”. No point in handing it off to other people to manage (or more likely mismanage), when I can do the same and eliminate the middleman. After all, the middleman also has to get paid, or is he part of that greater good?

Raising the household income for some families might actually hurt them some. If you have a family that’s just under the maximum for benefits/help from the government, you could potentially raise them to just above that maximum and make it so that they are no longer eligible for the benefits. If the amount they went up isn’t enough to balance out the benefits they were receiving, they may end up in a worse situation than what they were in before the increase. There are already many families living in that spot. They make too much for help from government programs, but not enough to really support their family.

I’m all for helping others, but I’d have to look into all the specific details of it all before I could say it’s really a good idea. I have to admit, I don’t like the idea of my money being taken away and just given freely to others without me having some say in where it goes. I don’t mind donating money and helping other’s out, I just like having some say in who/what I’m helping out. I think there are a lot of things that should be looked at when deciding where to redistribute the money.

@snowberry, that middleman is a democratically elected government. One of the main purposes of government is to redistribute wealth.

You sound like an anarchist.

@Seaofclouds, you do have say. You live in a democracy. If you don’t like how the government is redistributing money, work to elect people who will do a better job.

@Qingu Ok, 10% own 90% and it actually is a weath statement not an income stat I guess, so it doesn’t really answer the question now that I think about it, I’ll look up the IRS reporting to see what income really works out as.

@wilma I thought if I made the number higher than $150k not enough people here in the collective would identify as someone having to give something up. I tried to pick a number that the average person, living in an place that has sort of an average cost of living probably has discretionary income to play with.

@Qingu Actually, @JLeslie said it wouldn’t be the government redistributing the money in this situation, she said it would be the employers. I don’t elect my employer (though I did accept the job they offered me) and I don’t have a say in who they employee.

Yes.

@Seaofclouds, she didn’t specify who would be forcibly redistributing the money; I had just assumed it would be the party with the (supposed) monopoly on force, i.e. the government.

@Qingu, she mentioned it in her response above.

@Qingu Taxes sort of attempt this, but it seems not the same to me. Not to mention half the country seems to have a knee jerk reaction to paying taxes, and I wanted to try to keep that out of the equation for this question. Plus taxes go to much more than how much each person winds up with in their pocket, it leaves expenditure decisions up to the government, rather than the individual.

@Qingu Right. And they don’t need more work when I can do the job just fine!

But I don’t see how this is different than a progressive tax that simply gives less wealthy people a sum of money.

<Hands @JLeslie some aspirin and a cup of water>
Wow, I would’ve answered very simply, with a “yes”, but this is raging out of control on the numbers and permutations, now.

@snowberry, so, just to be clear, you are an anarchist?

@Qingu It does sound similar, but like I mentioned in the first part of my response, just raising the household income for some families might actually hurt them more than help them because there are many families that could be (and probably are) just barely eligible for state/government benefits. If we raise their household income, they could lose their benefits. If the amount of the increase in their income does not balance out the amount they were receiving in benefits, they may actually end up in a worse situation. There are many families that make just above the maximum for state/government benefits that can’t make ends meet. I’d rather help those families in other ways so that they don’t end up in a worse situation overall.

@Seaofclouds, I’m pretty sure the cutoff for those benefits is well below 150k. Though I do see your point.

@Qingu I’ve lived way below that poverty level, so I know about ends that never meet, but circumstances are different in different areas of the country.
@SuperMouse, I know that that seems like a lot but if you are a family with 3 kids in college, or high medical bills, then you might not be feeling wealthy. I didn’t think we were talking about the higher earners knowing where their next meal was coming from, just the low earners and those without income would probably be in that circumstance.
It seems like it would be bad for incentive to work harder at your job to get a better position and better pay. But I suppose since most jobs never pay that much if you were single then it wouldn’t come into play. But it might give families pause to have both parents working if the income would be over 150k. It might take the advantage out of a second income. That in itself could have good or bad consequences.

In theory it sounds like a great idea, those who get more, give to those who get less. I’m not sure that these kinds of ideas always have our intended effect.

I already give up more than 10% of my income to charity and that is after I already paid my taxes, and my income isn’t anywhere near the 150k number. I like knowing where my donations are going. I’d rather distribute my contributions myself. Then I know it’s not going in the pocket of some bureaucrat.

@Qingu Psychologically different. And, many many Americans would not see how it is similar I am thinking. Plus, again, the government is not touching the money, except for what is customarily collected currently.

Let’s say there are zero taxes, then think about the question. I know fundamentally you are ok with it, but I guess it is for those who maybe never thought about it this way. Too many obsess about tax money going to people who don’t work, use the system, and that everyone should be able to make as much money as they can. I hoped my proposal got around some of that thought process.

@wilma I guess in the end I don’t think of it as giving to those who have less. I just thought of it as a different salary structure.

@wilma, I disagree that circumstances are different in different areas of the country to the extent that 150k will ever, anywhere, entail “just making ends meet.” There are people who live in New York City and San Francisco that are just making ends meet and I guarantee you they make a lot less than 150k.

And frankly, if you make 150k and you don’t “feel wealthy,” I think you need to get a grip and get some perspective. Having to drive a Corrolla and take student loans for your kids college does not impoverished make. The level of disconnect and the sense of entitlement that wealthy people in this country feel sickens me.

@Qinqu LOL, what a question! No! I pay taxes silly! I obey the laws, but perhaps you should re-read the question. “Would you give up…” No, I would not voluntarily give up my money when I can do the job myself quite well. As I mentioned before, I already donate 15% to charities of various sorts, and just last night I was contemplating giving more. What percentage of your income after taxes do you donate to worthy causes? Does it irritate you that I don’t just open up my wallet and say, “Here, Uncle Sam, help yourself”? Who does that?

@JLeslie, I still don’t see how this is not a tax. You are forcibly redistributing wealth. That’s a tax, ipso facto. If it walks like a duck…

@Qingu It is well below $150K, but the group of people that would be having the money redistributed to them is the group that makes well below the $150K. That is where there could be a problem. If I give a family that is just barely qualifying for benefits some food, it doesn’t take away their benefits and it helps them out. If I give them a “raise” and their income is just above the maximum, they lose their benefits and have to use that money to cover what their benefits were covering. If their “raise” isn’t equal to the amount they were receiving in benefits, they are now actually dealing with less money than they had before the “raise” when you look at everything and not just their income.

This makes no sense to me. Why am I giving money to people who already have jobs that pay?

If I’m going to pay more taxes, I want it to go to the people who are worst off. I want it to go for education programs and housing programs and food programs. I want it to go for the education programs most proven to be effective, because as far as I know, that’s the best way to get people out of poverty over the long run. You know, give a guy a fish and he eats for a day; teach him to fish and he eats for the rest of his life.

But I am not giving my money to random people I don’t know who are already employed. I don’t know how they are going to use it. I don’t see the point. If they want to benefit from education programs, that’s one thing. But to spend it on amusement park rides and vacations in Atlantic City? Forget it!

@snowberry, well now I’m confused. Because you say you can do the job of wealth distribution better than the government. So how much time do you spend allocating portions of your charitable giving to, say, education, health care, and (say) neighborhood watch? And how exactly do you arrive at such decisions?

Edit: or are we talking simply about giving money directly to less wealthy people? If that’s the case, I’m curious as to how you’ve managed to cut the middleman. Do you personally identify the poor people who get your charity and hand them the money?

@Quiqu Really? Is that what I said? You are really reading a lot into my words. If you’re going in that direction, I’m ignoring your comments.

See edited post, @snowberry.

@wundayatta But spending moves the economy doesn’t it? The lower paid workers will have more to spend, or to take care of themselves and save and rely less on government programs. It bothers me that senior executives make $600k and a managers might make $60. It seems to me the Executive can easily make $540k and still afford everything he buys already, because I doubt he needs to spend it all, and each of the managers and other employees for that matter make more. The manager would make $66k in my little example. That $6k is noticeable at his salary. Forget about executives making $10million, they certainly can get along with $9million, can’t they? The government will still be taxing the money, but they are not the ones redistributing it.

@JLeslie, I once read that the super-wealthy people who constantly bitch about the possibility of higher tax rates wouldn’t ever notice to begin with, since their income is largely capital gains which tend to fluctuate wildly.

If you raised a millionaire’s tax rate 10% but didn’t tell him, it is likely he would not notice at all, unless he took the time to dig into his portfolios and catalog exactly how much he had “earned” that year.

@Qingu I donate to all sorts of programs such as you describe. But they are not government programs, so I’m guessing you wouldn’t like that.

@snowberry, okay. Please explain how the programs you donate to are not “middlemen.”

Please explain why you said you “can do the job just fine!” (of redistributing money) when you are, in fact, giving money to programs to do that job.

I agree with @wundayatta I don’t understand why pay redistribution is good for people. If I make 100k and you make 160k you have to give some of your earnings to me? I don’t get that?
Giving to charitable and Educational programs gives directly to those who need the help.

@Qingu “And frankly, if you make 150k and you don’t “feel wealthy,” I think you need to get a grip and get some perspective. Having to drive a Corrolla and take student loans for your kids college does not impoverished make. The level of disconnect and the sense of entitlement that wealthy people in this country feel sickens me.”
I never said that getting student loans made you impoverished. I said “if you are a family with 3 kids in college, or high medical bills, then you might not be feeling wealthy.” there is a big difference between feeling wealthy and being impoverished.
If a family can afford to pay it’s household bills and not take out loans to educate their children or pay their medical bills then I think they are fortunate. But I don’t think that they are over the top wealthy.
By the way @Qingu for your perspective, I am living far, far below 150k cutoff and would probably be recieveing a good chunk of money in @JLeslie ‘s scenario. So I already have a real good grip.

@Qingu I think most people would not notice, not just the wealthy. People babbled on an on that Obama raised taxes when middle class people were taxed less after he came into office. I checked the tax tables myself a year ago. Of course it is only a few hundred dollars difference for most Americans, but the lie took hold. How many people don’t understand that whether you owe money or get money back at the end of the year does not mean you paid more or less taxes, we pay the same tax whether our jobs pulled out higher taxes or not from payroll. People are idiots.

@Qingu And, who is saying there is only impovershed and wealthy? There is a whole bunch of stuff inbetween.

@Qinqu Ah yes, You are right. What I meant is that considering that our government pays hundreds or thousands for toilet seats and hammers, they take the concept of middleman to a whole new level. I have no desire to feed more of that corruption, and yes, no matter the agency, there’s corruption in our government! In addition, as others have mentioned, I’d not want to have someone just hand someone else the money so it could be spent at Disney Land, etc. The organizations I donate to are held much more accountable. I make sure of it. I can even go there and volunteer if I want to, and I have from time to time.

I guess I interpreted “just making ends meet” as “impoverished.” I probably overreacted to @wilma though, as this is kind of a pet peeve of mine.

@snowberry, so there is no corruption in the charitable programs to which you give?

In what sense are the organizations you donate to “more accountable”? Because I’m assuming they aren’t democracies.

Out of curiosity, are these organizations religious? And if so, how much of your donations go to such things as prayer manuals, preacher salaries, and furnishings for churches?

See, I was thinking how when the US began to have a lot of unionization middle class wages grew, and so did our overall wealth as a country. Our economy boomed, more people could afford more things; rather than a few people affording whatever they wanted, and everyone else not having much at all. More people lived an easier life financially. The problem is, it seems to me, where the union was strong, the top tier still made gobs of money, the companies just charged more, and made ridiculous promises of benefits under union pressure.

@wilma these fictional folks with 150k and kids in college are probably not living in a penthouse apartment in Manhattan, but I can guarantee you that they are living much more comfortably than the people @JLeslie would be wanting to give some of this money to. When I was married and we were comfortably making six figures, I would never have complained about how tough I had it, that just seems ridiculous to me. Yeah I wanted to be able to stay at home with my kids so I had to forgo the new car every year, poor me.~ Let me point out that at the time I was living in Southern California in a suburb of Los Angeles with one of the most expensive real estate markets in the country. Even with our meager income, just south of 150k, we managed to afford a 2,000 square foot house and never had to think twice before purchasing whatever we wanted or needed. So yeah, @Qingu is right when he points out there probably isn’t much financial suffering in that income range. Also, it seems unlikely that people comfortably ensconced in the middle class would be the recipients of this money. It would likely be directed toward those living in crushing poverty, so the “I don’t want to help people making 100k” argument seems to be a bit of a straw man.

@wundayatta the people living at the socio-economic level on the receiving end of this hypothetical redistribution are very unlikely to use the cash to travel to Disneyworld. That is a pretty poor argument for not wanting to give. More than likely the money would be spent to put food on the table, pay for doctor visits, to buy new shoes, pay for school supplies, you know those types of luxuries.

@SuperMouse “So yeah, @Qingu is right when he points out there probably isn’t much financial suffering in that income range. Also, it seems unlikely that people comfortably ensconced in the middle class would be the recipients of this money. It would likely be directed toward those living in crushing poverty, so the “I don’t want to help people making 100k” argument seems to be a bit of a straw man.”

I didn’t say that the people in that income range were “suffering” I said they that “might” be just making ends meet. Paying their bills and perhaps living their lives without debt. and @JLeslie did say :

“Let’s assume for this exercise that if everyone making over $150k gave up 10% and it was redistributed in the form of salary increases to people who make less than that, that the result would be an overall higher living standard and prosperity for the country. The working poor could maybe not struggle quite as much and the middle class has a little extra cash to save for the future or a rainy day, or spend on something they need to make life easier or more fun.”

So in her scenario she is saying “that people comfortably ensconced in the middle class would be the recipients of this money.”
That is what I was referring to in my answer.

Yes, I included the middle class, but I also include the working poor. I just was excluding the people who don’t work.

negative. if I’m giving up 10% it’s going to my kids.

Yes. Some of the organizations I donate to are religious. But I consider the money there well spent. Do you consider $800 toilet seats a good way to spend your money? I don’t judge you for the way you choose to spend your money. I’ll spend my money the way I want to. K?

@snowberry, can you actually cite where and how often the government has purchased $800 toilet seats or are you getting your policy information from the movie “Independence Day”?

Why do you consider the money spent by churches for maintenance, salary, and prayer “well spent”? I’ve driven by plenty of churches that have some pretty fancy stained glass windows… probably more expensive than $800, too.

And sorry, if you’re going to make an argument that you know how to redistribute wealth better than the government, I expect you to be able to defend it. Not to just retreat into “it’s just my OPINION!”

OK. That’s it. Qinqu you’re not coming to my birthday party!

In Germany this is called solidarity with an appropriate income tax for people who can afford this in the interest of the common good. So my wife and I are already part of your plan.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SqHIPzTACrM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CY8xz3Q7aig&feature=related

On a personal level, 30 years ago when I was in the Army Reserve, I saw hundreds of dollars in food and other supplies walk out the door during summer camp training. I saw many instances like this, but I was afraid to speak up. It was only the tip of the iceberg then. I’m sure with all the war activity going on, it’s not like that today, but the corruption continues in other ways. Another example:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5vO4RSClgss

Do your own search. It’s there if you look.

Youtube is not a valid source, @snowberry.

What’s with all these people on Fluther citing Youtube videos?

Also, needless to say: anecdotal evidence. Can you show that overall corruption and waste in the public sector is greater than it is in the private sector? In the case of health care, Medicare is much, much more cost-efficient than private insurance, for example.

CBS news is! Here’s the same story! If you had looked, it said CBS news. You never even bothered.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/01/29/eveningnews/main325985.shtml

I’m about done with you guys. You’re too lazy to even bother to look.

@snowberry, yep, I read a much longer version of that story in the NYT several years ago.

First of all, this is the DoD. I did not think we were discussing defense. This is why I asked you if you were an anarchist, and the question now bears repeating: are you suggesting we privatize defense?

Second, not sure if you were too lazy to look, but a lot of that waste went to private contractors like Blackwater. Blackwater and other PMCs have also been the subject of corruption scheme. Last I heard Blackwater’s founder was busy building a private army in the UAE at the employ of that country’s sheik, and taking his troops out to night on the town with prostitutes.

So again: if you’d like to argue that public sector is more corrupt and wasteful than the private, please show that the DoD is more wasteful per capita than an organization like Blackwater. And good luck.

But of course, the topic of this question is not military waste, it’s simple redistribution of wealth along the lines of enforced charity. So: do you have any data to support your characterization of that particular role of government? Or do you think that bringing up “lots of waste in the Pentagon” is actually a valid argument for “the government should not do anything.”

I have seen government waste first hand. 30 years ago at the Army Reserve Trasportation Unit at Utah State University they poured about 1000 gallons of diesel fuel down the storm sewer because they kept shipping them more, and they did not have enough personnel to use it all up in the vehicles. I was there as an Army Reservist. It’s a cultural thing, and it’s there from the top down, and it hasn’t changed.

If you want to donate more to the causes you support fine! I’ll not berate you for that, even if I don’t like your cause! But enforced charity won’t work for me, because at that point it ceases to be charity anymore. Have a nice day.

The fact this question is being asked and discussed shows that there is something wrong with the way the wealth of the country is distributed. Our economic system allows a few to grow wealthier and wealthier while forcing down wages for many who are poor. The minimum wage is a disgrace. Anyone prepared to work rather than try to live on benefits or crime deserves a wage that he or she can live on.

The person who sweeps the streets or maintains the water supply is doing a job no less valuable to society than a city stockbroker. He deserves to be treated with respect as a fellow countryman and he deserves a wage that allows him to raise a family in decent conditions. My answer to the question is no, if I earned a lot of money then giving it to the less well off is not the answer. It seems too much like charity and honest workers deserve better than that.

@snowberry, do you understand the concept of anecdotal evidence? And why it’s not a valid argument?

@SuperMouse If one person does something silly, then I’m not happy. I’d rather give money to help folks do something useful. I’m not into letting them have choice if I’m providing the money. Not that I’m providing the money in this example. But just saying. I prefer targeted programs.

Also, the math is not correct. The ten percent salary tax does not equal a ten percent salary increase for everyone below 150k. Plus it is a regressive tax. The truly wealthy do not make money with income. They make it with capital gains.

I do understand that anything I say will not be good enough for you, @Qingu I do get that.

That’s not true. I’ve demurred on many a Fluther argument.

Here is the problem. You are pointing to several high profile instances of government fraud/waste, and concluding “therefore the government cannot do anything.”

By this logic, I could point to several high profile instances of private sector or religious fraud/waste and conclude “therefore the private sector and the church cannot do anything.”

This is why it’s important to look at the big picture and evaluate institutions in their broader context.

OK, since none of my examples work for you, I’m still gonna answer no, and leave it at that. I know what I know, and I don’t make up stuff. (Where have I said that before?)

You’re still not coming to my birthday party!

We already do, in the form of taxes.

@snowberry Just wondering why does it have to be the government is all bad and completely incompetent? I agree they have misappropriated funds at times. Private business also has it flaws. Spending mounds of money on 5 star hotel and parties for their employees. Money going for profit could go to help people instead. I have seen many many companies send everything overnight, rather than using ground when ground was sufficient. Spending money in the budget when not necessary to make sure they get the same budget next year (government does that too of course) All sorts of waste.

Much of health research is funded by the government. Many times private charities get some government funds. The two can work together, private and public sector, and both need to be monitored somehow, because both are susceptible to corruption and mismanagement.

I cannot control how our government spends my tax money, nor can I help how big business operates. I know about the benefits that our government performs, some of which I am not a fan. But in my opinion, more is not necessarily better. Call me a control freak. I prefer to fund my own projects.

Forgive me for having not read the 70+ responses already written.
No, I wouldn’t.
Instead I would more likely give a part of my money to people who have no job, due to disability, or not being given a job because of discriminative reasons, or being found ‘too old’ by the employer.
Another part I would like to give to charity, mainly to charities that involve children, in other parts than the Western world.
Okay, maybe a small part to people who work tough jobs that pay little (nurses, care workers, teachers, etc.).

[mod says] This is our Question of the Day!

@snowberry In some ways, I actually agree. After all, I feel that the government doesn’t really know how to help people nearly as well as non-government entities.

The problem is that there are many people who are selfish, who feel that charity in and of itself is bad and that everybody who can’t make it on their own deserves whatever they get, even if it results in their death (starvation, illness, hypothermia…). And then there are those that want to give but are of limited means. Granted, even dropping a can of soup off at the local shelter helps out, but only so much, especially in times like these under a system that only makes the problems worse as time goes on.

What many call “forced charity” would not be required if not for greed. If there were more jobs that paid a living wage, there would be fewer people in need of charity. Are you saying that giving people jobs with a living wage is charity?

@rebbel My aunt is an RN who earns $48/hr. Yes, it’s a tough job, but it’s not like they are not compensated for their hard work. Teachers also have hard jobs, but their average income varies between $35–60k/yr depending in the state. Now look at all of the other jobs that are also hard yet pay $25k/yr or less, sometimes far less.

Also bear in mind that cost of living varies considerably around the country; while you can live fairly well on $20k/yr in parts of the South and Southwest, you will barely even make rent in Boston (Median rent = $1,200/month, or $14,400/yr, not counting utilities, food, taxes, or anything else) so you can’t always look at a person’s income and tell whether they can make it or not anyways, especially not once you throw children into the mix.

@jerv, I don’t buy that argument about cost of living. The tradeoff for Boston dwellers who can’t afford a nice place to live is that they get to live in Boston, a major center of cultural activities and economic services. The tradeoff for people who choose to buy cheap housing in the boonies is that they have to live in the boonies.

@Qingu Moving not free, and that whole region is rather pricey. I lived in the boonies about 1–½ hours away and rents were still $800+.

That doesn’t include heat, and we were lucky to only pay $130/month for that, on top of electricity ($100/month average), so just housing costs >$1000/month regardless. I checked, and many places in the South are far cheaper for rent, don’t pay for plowing, and are just overall cheaper to live in.

You also imply tat the South and Midwest are not nice places to live.

Well, they aren’t.

I find that in most places you get back what you give.
I suppose that there could be exceptions.