Re: Question on Charity

[Geoff McIntosh <stickboy@freshground.com>]

If the Federal government didn't take 30% or more of our income we would
all have enough extra income to donate more to charities, to pay off our
credit cards, and to raise our children.  The Fed has no place in social
programs.  It has shown itself to be completely incapable of handling money
in a responsible fashion. 

Charity should be relied upon.  Taking my money and giving it to a "poor"
person is theft.  Social Security is theft.  The government is nothing more
than a gun used to rob the workers of this country.  Socialism is dead.
Let it, and Social Security, rot.

At 05:31 PM 6/3/99 -0400, you wrote:
>			QUESTION ON CHARITY
>
>
>Many of those advocating privatization have argued that both charity
>and family should play a greater role in a reformed Social Security
>system.
>
>1. Do you favor a privatized system which eliminates the current
>system's redistributive benefits formula (which gives relatively
>higher benefits to lower-income people)?

No, just a system which eliminates the current system completely.  Allowing
people to rely on government handouts of stolen money allows people to
abdicate responsibility for their lives and choices.


>2. Under the present system or some of the proposed alternatives,
>will some people be forced to choose between food, lodging or
>medicine in their daily budgets?

Who cares.  Let them die.  They failed in life.  Forcing others to care
about the "poor" or "unfortunate" is wrong.


>3. Will charitable organizations be able to fill the gap between
>the needs of the poorest sector of the population and the benefits
>provided by government programs?  Should this be the solution to
>this problem?

Yes.  They could fill the gap if citizens weren't so overburdened with
excessive taxes.  Give us back the 30% or more of our money that you steal
and waste every year and watch how much charitable contributions grow and
how quickly the credit card debt of this country declines.  Also imagine
how many extra employees employers could afford to hire if they (the
employers) weren't burdened with the exorbient social security taxes.

Stickboy

>
>Bob Carlitz, moderator 
>Information Renaissance
>