The Gaming Den

Read this article today on government mandatory zakat (charity) for Sunni Muslims and...I think this is basically the viewpoint that many conservatives take on government services, particularly social services. They see the government as corrupt and inefficient, and very much object to being "forced" into a contribution that they feel should be voluntary on their part.

I can see that kind of point, but I don't agree with it. Fundamentally I think it goes back to an understanding of the purpose of government and citizenship: the government is there to serve and protect the people, to provide and support the structures that facilitate our life (food distribution, money and finances, etc.). All the people. Military and police, roads and utilities are the biggest and most obvious part of that, and I think it right and fair that everyone contributes to the common defense and the common infrastructure. It may be difficult to quantify the benefit to each individual, but then it is probably difficult to quantify the cost of each individual's life and safety.

And I think social services are a natural and fundamental part of what government should do. Beyond "To care for the soldier that has born the battle, and his widow, and his orphan." I guess I see welfare and healthcare less as forms of charity than as necessary services that are provided to keep us out of the whole Mad Max situation. Hungry, poor, and sick people are desperate, and desperation leads to crime, lawlessness, and economic stagnation. By keeping single parents off the streets and not starving, we actually improve the lives of everybody in the country - and again, the individual benefit might be hard to quantify, but it is there. Every loaf of bread bought via food stamps is a loaf somebody didn't have to steal; every infection caught and treated before it is passed on is a couple days or weeks of economic productivity not lost.

Conservatives of all stripes only believe in char4ity when they get to take credit for it. For them, it is just an extension of selfishness.

The diffused nature of taxes makes it impossible to take credit for your charity, so they are opposed to taxes when they might support charity.

They also want the poor to suffer. Suffering is very important in that world-view, and they will punish the free rider even when it hurts them in a direct way.

That article really confuses me based on my knowledge of Islam. My understanding is that Zakat is only collected based on year-long savings. So, if they've had money worth at least 85 grams of gold for the whole year they pay 2.5% of their money they've held for that year. But, if at any time they've had less than that, even if they were a billionaire for 347 days out of the year (lunar years are shorter) and on one day had money worth 84g of gold then they don't pay zakat.

So, this automatically taking 2.5% from bank accounts seems to go against Islamic teachings- both because it doesn't check that they've held that money for a year and because it should be taken by religious leaders not government leaders.

---

Are there any examples of working societies based mostly on charity? Again with Islam, but I've heard that the Muslim empire was mostly based on ongoing charities- roads, water supplies, schools, hospitals etc were all free and paid for by rich Muslims who gave money for a permanent charity with the hope of being rewarded in heaven.

But then again this is a Muslim who was talking about this, so I'm interested in whether this actually happened or was wishful thinking about the past.

Charity is a weird concept to begin with. It generally assume a large discrepancy in wealth, and such a disparity is large enough and persistent enough that giving-to-the-poor becomes a singular concept and practice distinct from, say, community support (barn raising, etc.) and gift-giving.

Now, there have been societies where gift giving was a fundamental aspect of the economy. Pre-Roman Gaul and Germania used gift-giving as a way to keep money (captured from raids, fees and fines, etc.) moving through the economy; it was how the king stayed in control. But charity? Even at the height of the Roman Catholic Church's power when donations peaked they couldn't provide alms and hospice for the poor of Europe, and didn't even try.

I would be inclined to suspect that the article is simplified; explaining the legal specifics of how only the increase in savings is collected seems like it'd go beyond the scope of the article, and not be interesting to the majority of readers. Either way, if someone's habitually taking it all out to dodge the rule anyway, it's a non-issue.

That said... I can totally see why people would want to avoid giving extra money to the government to redistribute as charity. All governments these days are corrupt to some degree, either running explicitly or implicitly on bribery. Most are fairly inefficient as well, generally a natural consequence of scale. At the very least, there does not exist a government that would spend all of the money you might have to contribute to charity in exactly the way you'd want it. If you actually want to turn your cash into some sort of positive good, there's certainly much better ways to do that then contributing it to the government (trivially, look up Givewell and find an organization that is doing something you want done in a particularly efficient and effective way). In fact, I'm rather baffled by this thread, in general. AH, do you really mean to say that your preferred charity is your own government, and that you make all your charitable contributions to them?

K wrote:Conservatives of all stripes only believe in charity when they get to take credit for it. For them, it is just an extension of selfishness.

And the fact that it's tax deductible and they can generally give it to something they do support. So giving to a religious institution under the guise of charity means they can funnel money into their favourite cult and help repress women or whatever, and at the same time avoid letting the government have their money. I imagine if they weren't tax deductible there'd be a massive drop in the amount donated to charity.

And as for them wanting to be able to say where their taxes are spent, does that mean their boss can tell them what to spend their pay on? (Or for those shareholders, does that mean the consumers can tell them what to spend the dividends on?) For that matter, I don't drive, so presumably that means I can elect for my money not to go on roads, and most people don't support copyright, so can they stipulate in their taxes that no money goes to enforcing those laws (law enforcement budgets get specific "Not for use on piracy" labels)?

K wrote:Conservatives of all stripes only believe in char4ity when they get to take credit for it. For them, it is just an extension of selfishness.

The diffused nature of taxes makes it impossible to take credit for your charity, so they are opposed to taxes when they might support charity.

They also want the poor to suffer. Suffering is very important in that world-view, and they will punish the free rider even when it hurts them in a direct way.

No, conservatives of all stripes only believe in charity when it goes to people that they think deserve it. The biggest criterion is actually knowing the recipient, but knowing that they share the same values is a close second. In the United States, 'lazy' or 'unchristian' people getting assistance are the two things that conservatives have nightmares about.

So if you want conservatives to donate a ton to charity, you just need to convince them that the charity only goes to hardworking Christians.

CatharzGodfoot wrote:

K wrote:Conservatives of all stripes only believe in char4ity when they get to take credit for it. For them, it is just an extension of selfishness.

The diffused nature of taxes makes it impossible to take credit for your charity, so they are opposed to taxes when they might support charity.

They also want the poor to suffer. Suffering is very important in that world-view, and they will punish the free rider even when it hurts them in a direct way.

No, conservatives of all stripes only believe in charity when it goes to people that they think deserve it. The biggest criterion is actually knowing the recipient, but knowing that they share the same values is a close second. In the United States, 'lazy' or 'unchristian' people getting assistance are the two things that conservatives have nightmares about.

So if you want conservatives to donate a ton to charity, you just need to convince them that the charity only goes to hardworking Christians.

Not true at all. Your failure in this message is the blanket statement about "conservatives of all stripes." This is not true of all conservatives. I am a conservative, and I give to United Way, Salvation Army, Goodwill, Big Brothers and Sisters, Susan G. Komen, and a few others. I don't put a stipulation on a single cent. Christian, Muslim, atheist, whatever. Couldn't care less. Because one more day for a lady with breast cancer is priceless, and their skin color and religious beliefs don't matter to me.

This is the great deceit about conservatives. As you noted, there are conservatives of many stripes. I am a fiscal and political conservative. I take a conservative view of the exercise of government power. I interpret the Constitution and the powers granted to the gubmint over the people conservatively. I don't care what color someone is. I don't care what their religion is. I only care that government does not try to force a particular religious doctrine down my throat, or compel me to attend a particular church. So when you say that conservatives of all stripes have nightmares about non-Christians getting charity, you are wrong. I am proof of that, and I've got a lot of friends who think the way I do.

When I think about government assistance programs, I do feel that there should be stipulations. For example, in order for my wife's grandparents to qualify for government assistance with nursing home bills, they had to sell my grandfather's car for at least $900 dollars. The car was barely worth $900 dollars, but okay, force them to sell it. They're too old to drive, and gubmint bureaucrats know better, right? But what about drug tests before food stamps? Is it a good use of my tax dollars to make welfare payouts to crack heads? No, if you can afford drugs, then you can afford food. If you want to smoke weed, make it legal in your state, or move to California, get a job, and buy your own pot. And twinkies for later. Personally, I like oatmeal creme cookies, but when it comes to munchies, to each his own. I'm off topic now, but my point is that if you can force octogenarians to sell their car, then I think it is perfectly fine to ask for a piss test.

Personally, I believe that men and women on food stamps, medicaid, or other forms of welfare should be on fertility drugs so they can't have any babies. Once they are able to support themselves, they can go ahead and have as many babies as they want. But it is not constructive for a strong society to be birthing babies into poverty and welfare. I also believe that people on welfare should have their material possessions offered up at public auction. I don't have any problem helping someone who needs help, but if they've got an iPhone, they don't need it.

npc310 wrote:

CatharzGodfoot wrote:

K wrote:Conservatives of all stripes only believe in char4ity when they get to take credit for it. For them, it is just an extension of selfishness.

The diffused nature of taxes makes it impossible to take credit for your charity, so they are opposed to taxes when they might support charity.

They also want the poor to suffer. Suffering is very important in that world-view, and they will punish the free rider even when it hurts them in a direct way.

No, conservatives of all stripes only believe in charity when it goes to people that they think deserve it. The biggest criterion is actually knowing the recipient, but knowing that they share the same values is a close second. In the United States, 'lazy' or 'unchristian' people getting assistance are the two things that conservatives have nightmares about.

So if you want conservatives to donate a ton to charity, you just need to convince them that the charity only goes to hardworking Christians.

Not true at all. Your failure in this message is the blanket statement about "conservatives of all stripes." This is not true of all conservatives. I am a conservative, and I give to United Way, Salvation Army, Goodwill, Big Brothers and Sisters, Susan G. Komen, and a few others. I don't put a stipulation on a single cent. Christian, Muslim, atheist, whatever. Couldn't care less. Because one more day for a lady with breast cancer is priceless, and their skin color and religious beliefs don't matter to me.

This is the great deceit about conservatives. As you noted, there are conservatives of many stripes. I am a fiscal and political conservative. I take a conservative view of the exercise of government power. I interpret the Constitution and the powers granted to the gubmint over the people conservatively. I don't care what color someone is. I don't care what their religion is. I only care that government does not try to force a particular religious doctrine down my throat, or compel me to attend a particular church. So when you say that conservatives of all stripes have nightmares about non-Christians getting charity, you are wrong. I am proof of that, and I've got a lot of friends who think the way I do.

When I think about government assistance programs, I do feel that there should be stipulations. For example, in order for my wife's grandparents to qualify for government assistance with nursing home bills, they had to sell my grandfather's car for at least $900 dollars. The car was barely worth $900 dollars, but okay, force them to sell it. They're too old to drive, and gubmint bureaucrats know better, right? But what about drug tests before food stamps? Is it a good use of my tax dollars to make welfare payouts to crack heads? No, if you can afford drugs, then you can afford food. If you want to smoke weed, make it legal in your state, or move to California, get a job, and buy your own pot. And twinkies for later. Personally, I like oatmeal creme cookies, but when it comes to munchies, to each his own. I'm off topic now, but my point is that if you can force octogenarians to sell their car, then I think it is perfectly fine to ask for a piss test.

Personally, I believe that men and women on food stamps, medicaid, or other forms of welfare should be on fertility drugs so they can't have any babies. Once they are able to support themselves, they can go ahead and have as many babies as they want. But it is not constructive for a strong society to be birthing babies into poverty and welfare. I also believe that people on welfare should have their material possessions offered up at public auction. I don't have any problem helping someone who needs help, but if they've got an iPhone, they don't need it.

Fair enough. I'll change my claim to 'conservatives that I've met living in the South'.

NPC310 sure seems fixated with making sure people don't get iPhones. It seems like a very odd thing to fixate on considering that I don't know one person that has one.

That being said, I will support NPC310's assertions that people who own iPhones are less deserving of rights as the rest of us, as long as we can agree on two changes:

1. Take away all rights of iPhone owners, especially the right to not have rocks hucked at them

2. Raise the income from "on government assistance" to "makes less than infinity dollars".

citation: http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=iphone

On the surface, I can agree that people who have iphones are less deserving. However, there's also the reality about people with iphones. A poor person isn't going to get out of the gutter because they were better fed for three or four months, which is what happens when they buy an iphone; stuff like rent, utilities, and other major bills are much larger than some gadget. In addition, you need to understand the philosophy of being poor, specifically the habit of spending your extra money (refer to #4).

npc310 wrote:If you want to smoke weed, make it legal in your state, or move to California, get a job, and buy your own pot.

People can only move to California if they can get a job there. California cannot employ all the people. Some people continue to live in Texas even though they want pot because they need the job and California cannot employ them.

npc310 wrote:I also believe that people on welfare should have their material possessions offered up at public auction. I don't have any problem helping someone who needs help, but if they've got an iPhone, they don't need it.

And how are they supposed to get off welfare if you make them sell their car, and then they can't get a job outside walking distance?

and what if their iphone is their only computing device? Maybe they are using linkedin and facebook to try and get a job.

And yes, poor people make bad decisions. But honestly, putting up barriers on the legitimate people to catch the less than 1% freeloaders? That's so not worth it, it's like spending $46K, to drug test and save the tax payers $15k. It's stupid. Is it irritating when a few people game the system? Yes. But throwing out the baby with the bathwater is stupid, has always been stupid, and will continue to be stupid.

Also, you have to understand that welfare is a direct subsidy to the economy. Those poor people you're bitching about buying Iphones, with their welfare check? guess what.. that money went right back into the economy. (Admitedly to At&T and Apple, so.. that's sad)

Welfare and social security don't spend months in a bank, they come in, they get spent, and are back into the economy. It's basically a stimulus package for areas that would otherwise be fucked. That Korean family that owns the local grocery store. they would be living on the streets, except that the people on welfare around them buy from them. The 'hardworking' business owner who owns the mcdonalds, and the burgerking in the neighborhood. He'd be on welfare, if it wasn't for welfare.

when you talk about cutting social security and welfare, and firing government employees. What you're saying is. You're going to fix the economy and unemployment problems by taking money Out of the economy, and putting MORE people on the unemployment line.

Is that really going to work out the way you think it is?

A special thanks to NPC310 for giving an example of everything I stated in his reply. It's very gratifying.