Charity – A New Look

My granddaughter inspired me. She was working on a project that she really enjoyed and was being paid for it. What could be better?

What could be better is that when the job was done she was given a bonus. But she didn't feel that it was due her, so she asked me to act as an intermediary to an official of an organization in which I am active, in order that she might pass on the bonus without identifying herself. Of course I knew the donor, but from the perspective of the organization it was an anonymous gift.

That's what charity is. Not that it is simply an anonymous gift, but it is an offering made consciously and voluntarily, and without any expectation of reward. In fact it need not be anonymous, but it is voluntary.ⁱ

Most religions emphasize our responsibility for the needy; for the poor and the hungry – the sick and the homeless. And there are many who abjure organized religion but share the same feeling of responsibility. When our country was founded, there were many who had faith in the goodness of their fellows; they trusted human nature. So our Constitution made no reference to the needy. When they could not be aided by members of their own families, however, there were usually community organizations to help out. And the same is true today. There are many in the community who can be relied on to assist those requiring help – to share their good fortune with those less fortunate. And that includes many who are not well off – perhaps the recipients of aid themselves – people who are grateful for the help they have received from others and who recognize that some are even more needy than they.

It's a beautiful idea that there is a willingness to share what you have so that others can be as well off as you are, but, sadly, it isn't the norm. We'd like “human nature” to promote a spirit of compassion in us all, but it is more likely that our greater interest is in what could prove to be a benefit for ourselves: we might decry the evil of the “one percent” who are oppressing the remaining ninety-nine percent of us, but if offered the opportunity to be part of the “rich,” there are few who would refuse it.

A few hundred years ago, the liberals, who prevailed in the founding of our Republic, were optimistic, and they put their faith in human nature. That, however, is no longer the case; our leaders don't trust the average citizen to love his neighbor and provide for the needy. They believe, however, that help needs to be providedⁱⁱ and they know how to do it. They know what is best and they formulate plans to achieve it. Ideally that would be with the agreement and support of those whom they represent, but they will usuallyⁱⁱⁱ have their way irrespective of preferences of their constituents. It's easy to convince voters of the virtue of feeding and clothing the poor, of providing shelter for the homeless, of healing the sick. The government can certainly afford to do so. And it's especially easy when you don't have to pay for it yourself. (At least that's the impression they give.) It's the responsibility of the rich.^iv They can afford it and they're obligated to do so.

And our representatives are eager to promote that kind of attitude. It means votes. When they are identified as supporters of programs that help citizens, they've taken good will earned by payments from the government, and converted it into supporters for the next election. However they've also created the expectation that this new allocation is something to which the recipients are entitled. It's not charity from the government, rather it's something owed them.

But the handout is not a voluntary one. It's a mandate created by our representatives, to be paid for by the government. As such it becomes a right, and it is not charity. And it's one that, by and large, has the support of our citizens. But it's only right that the government give aid to those in need, isn't it?

Perhaps it is. After all our representatives approved it, and they did so with our consent. But in order to get our consent they misled many of us. They did so by telling us only part of the story: they made our generosity seem like a free ride for us. The government would take care of it. They didn't tell us, for example, that in order to fund the service of providing free health care for an individual it will cost us individually, and that our taxes could be lowered if we didn't do so. Nor nor did they inform us that our personal expenses might be significantly less if we didn't feed people we don't know, or clothe people we don't like. They didn't tell us that we, individually, through our governmental “charity,” are letting many of those out of work buy things that we'd think twice before getting for ourselves. That's not to say that there shouldn't be a mechanism designed to aid the needy, but people should understand that they – not some distant institution – are paying for it. They're giving charity according to the whims^v of their representatives. There might be a different attitude if you told someone his taxes would be $100 or $1,000 less^vi if this or that program were eliminated. But taxpayers can't say no without the risk of repercussions – though some take the risk.

Over the next few weeks I'd like to talk^vii a little about charity and taxes. Specifically I'd like to review some of the implications of the present system as well as to suggest some alternatives. There are needs that must be met; there are expectations among the needy; and there is a system in place that may not be accomplishing all we need.

Next episode: “For Worse Or For Better” – It's better to give than to receive. Or is it?

i      My granddaughter's generosity was one of the factors responsible for my making a significant gift to another organization. It wasn't anonymous, though I didn't advertise it. But it was voluntary.

  

ii     Although it is not always clear whose benefit is uppermost in their thinking – the needy, their constituents, or the politicians themselves.

iii    Not always, but usually. It may require that they misrepresent what they are doing but, as they say, all's fair in love and politics.

iv     “Rich” means anyone with more money than me.

v      Both in terms of what services the government provides at taxpayer expense, and who gets those services.

vi     That's a lot of lottery tickets or fast food, or whatever else is important to him. And if he wins the lottery he'll promise to give some of the winnings to charity. Whether lottery winners actually give some of the bounty to charity is a different issue.

vii    Actually write. No. Type.