this post was submitted on 03 Oct 2023
160 points (89.2% liked)
Asklemmy
43866 readers
1440 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy ๐
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Tax goes to a single government spending fund, but I want this to be separate so it can't be channelled into buying guns or whatever. It's only welfare, and nothing else.
While donations are typically voluntary, there's nothing stopping it from being enforced. Someone can put a gun to your head and force you to donate to charity, and that's still a donation.
The vainglorious rich jerks might be less hesitant to part with their cash if they can boast about how much they donated, even if it was required of them. Only a little less, but that's still good.
I have thought about it, and I am sticking with "donate" as the term.
Then it's still a tax, just a tax going to a different fund.
In that case, the person holding a gun to your head stole your money and then they effectively donated it to charity.