Charitable Uncle Sam

Here is the set up:
Washington has a heart to assist people in need. Just as they assist other locations in the world who are in need of assistance at any given time, our government recognizes multiple levels of need for those within our own borders. With recent legislation passed, they now become that help. To fund their works, they raise taxes here and there, save up the funds to help, then disperse the money to alleviate those levels multiple levels of need.

Here is the concern or question:
When taxes are hiked for the purpose of benevolence from Washington, how will that effect the giving of those who are benevolent on their own? The concern, of course, is a downgrade in individual-to-organization charitable giving, with assumption that Washington has it covered.

The concern for sustained charitable giving goes beyond our borders. Much of what our fearless leaders are aiding will be within America, and there is nothing wrong with that. Our home government is supposed to work for, and aide it’s home people. It isn’t about blaming the government for what we will (try to) trust as an honest intent to help Americans in need; it is only an examination of how the shift in finances will effect independently run charities, both within and beyond the United States. Will it notably deplete the giving numbers to non-government affiliated 501(c) organization, or is this venturing too deep within speculation?

What happens when Joe Citizen, who has less to give because of higher taxes, chooses to cut back on charities he supports outside of the U.S?  We are not the only philanthropic nation in the world, but Americans supply a significant aide in charitable avenues outside of our nation. Over time, what will the donation front look like as we continue to prioritize our money?

I don’t think this benevolence from Washington will translate into the government pumping money into pre established organizations that the public is familiar with, such as Charity:Water or Invisible Children. Money raised through taxes may translate into new government structures and programs to disperse the help. By then, the venture is more defined as government aide instead of charity. Though the two may be synonymous, this creates an instant opportunity for supplying for those in need to become a political debate, depleting the real worth of the giving.

I know many self-sufficient Americans who are agitated with families who live by food stamps, but they would not pass up the opportunity to buy that family in need a bag of groceries themselves. The way giving is labeled has a lot to do with the way giving is activated.

It will take some time for these changes to span out, so we can evaluate results. Until then, what is your response to the supposed financial shift? Will increased government giving yield you a reason to give less, or do you remain solid?