I'd like to state more at length why I believe that the charity "solution" really isn't a solution at all.
I'm reminded of a quote by Gilbert Seldes: The rich have given to the poor a little food, a little drink, a little shelter and a few clothes. The poor have given to the rich palaces and yachts, and an almost infinite freedom to indulge their doubtful taste for display, and bonuses and excess profits, under which cold and forbidding terms have been hidden the excess labor and extravagant misery of the poor.
Charity is used to buoy inequality, to benefit those "offering" aid, and to mask the greed which forestalls the establishment of economic justice.
For example, the U.S. social safety net falls vastly short of humanely aiding those at the bottom of the socio/economic ladder. Large numbers of people remain unemployed and in poverty because our economic system perpetuates high unemployment, underemployment and the corporate drive for high profits demands low wages. Rather than building a social contract that would provide health care for all and lift everyone to a decent standard of living, the elite, like Huffington, would have Americans rely on private sector charity to "help the poor".
Charities often serve as fronts for political agendas, like gingrich's "educational" nonprofit which was found to have the agenda of unseating Democrats in congress.
Nonprofits create an illusion that they are mending the holes in our social fabric when behind the benevolent front there is an enormous hoarding of wealth. Doug published in one of his LBOs, "In economic terms, the larger nonprofits could be thought of as giant stock portfolios, often with marketing operations grafted on." For instance, in 1992, the nonprofits held $1 trillion in financial assets. Nonprofits are managed independently, primarily by the wealthy elite, but they do not pay taxes. In 1991 the nonprofit revenue was $615 billion or 11 percent of the GDP, none of which was taxed. 42 percent of "nonprofit" money is in stocks and 25 percent is in bonds which means that the nonprofits also have a significant impact on Wall Street.
Because donors to charities are entitled to a tax deduction, roughly one third of every dollar donated is subsidized by the federal government. That means public revenue which could be going to public welfare is lost to nonprofits. Gregory Colvin, an attorney specializing in tax law calculated that $1.5 million raised and spent through Gingrich's Kennesaw Sate college foundation . . . could translate into a Treasury loss of about $500,000 in tax savings by Gingrich's donors.
Arianna Huffington, who was once, maybe is still a constituent of the right-wing Progress and Freedom Foundation, understands this connection. She would have those public tax dollars going into her nonprofit , Center for Effective Compassion, instead of to taxes. She stated, "We are targeting those who think taxes can take care of compassion and ask them to volunteer and to give money [to her Center for Effective Compassion]."
We need to remember that the law lets rich folks donate stocks to their own foundations, then deduct from income the current stock value, totally avoiding capital gains taxes in the process.
At best, charities postpone societal questions about economic equality. At worst, charities serve as self-serving tax shields and allow right-wing ideologues like Newt Gingrich and Arianna Huffington to assault the "socialist" safety net while claiming that private charities will pick up the pieces. In the process the U.S. Treasury is robbed of dollars that could be put to entitlement programs. That is why I say that charity, as we know it, is nothing less than an attempt to justify capitalism's inherent injustices which makes it a euphemism for economic oppression.
And most importantly, no one is entitled to service from a charity. One has to be designated a "deserving" case. Think of all the subjective, discriminatory decisions that can be made under such a system and think of all the power that charity welds over a family in need. It is a terrible substitute for economic justice and I believe that we need to reject those who would undo entitlements and impose their self serving tax shields on the people.
Marta Russell