I'm not sure that mandatory required charity is anything more than asking for trouble. People should give, people should help, but they should do it willingly. If you force them to do it, they will resent both the charity and you. That is a scenario that offers short term benefits at best.
>'m not sure that mandatory required charity is anything more than asking for trouble. People should give, people should help, but they should do it willingly. If you force them to do it, they will resent both the charity and you. That is a scenario that offers short term benefits at best.
Every study on the subject has consistently found that giving creates a sense of happiness and fulfillment. These feelings more often than not encourage the givers to give more, to encourage others to give and to also give their time and efforts (not just money) to help others. It increases their humanity.
Why would people giving to someone of their choice (the receivers are of course qualified recipients) and seeing the good it does that person VS the government taking the money out of your pocket, wasting half of it and spending the other half on programs that under perform cause more trouble?
I may very well be wrong here, but I don't think someone with your opinion has ever given directly to a needy person...
>Every study on the subject has consistently found that giving creates a sense of happiness and fulfillment.
Willful giving. You cannot force charity, people will resent it as they will resent anything else you force them to do. As others have suggested, it will become nothing more an exercise in tax dodging in the best case scenario.
>I may very well be wrong here, but I don't think someone with your opinion has ever given directly to a needy person...
