Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
Do you understand what I'm proposing here? I'm suggesting that giving people a tax credit for charitable donations would cause most people to give as much of their tax burden as possible to charity, thus essentially having compulsory charity instead of compulsory taxes for social programs.
Kandahar, I respect your opinion, honest I do. I just don't agree with it. Compulsory charity sounds ridiculous to me, no offense.

Why would it raise our taxes in other areas if the need for government-funded entitlement programs was reduced? Politicians are not exactly fond of raising taxes just for kicks...
Maybe I don't understand what you're trying to say...I'm beginning to wonder.

I agree; I think that, if anything, it would need to be limited to traditional social programs, rather than public services like Homeland Security. I would agree that those would still need to be paid for with taxes.
We are most certainly talking past each other, my friend. I'm not talking about turning Homeland Security into some kind of 501C3 that can accept charitable contributions, I'm talking about The Church of the Radical Day Islams setting up a 501C3 that allowed charitable funding into it....so that, with your plan, we'd be funding the terrorists who are making war against us.

I really have no idea what you're talking about, since the idea I suggested was about individuals funding the charities THEY wanted to fund.
You said: "I think it's far more likely that congressmen will vote to fund charities that benefit them personally or politically, rather than people choosing of their own volition to donate to such organizations." What would Congressmen be voting for with your plan?

Kandahar, this is a subject I can't really raise much passion about since I think it's so far-fetched. Respectfully, I think I'm going to step away from it as I think I've said about all I've got on the subject.