My Proposed Charity Moratorium
If I had the power:
I would impose a moratorium on Tzedaka giving for a certain limited amount of time. Sounds harsh. However, before any criticism, I would like to undertake a cost benefit analysis .
In a normal healthy society where people understand that they have to take care of themselves and personal responsibility is a given you will end up with a normal bell-curve distribution of wealth. The majority of people will make a living, some won't and others will make a lot more than they need. Lets assume a typical normal expected distribution. Approximately 80% will earn enough to support themselves and their families. What will be left is 10% wealthy and 10% in poverty.
The Torah mandates that one give 10% of their earnings to Tzedaka. It is fair to assume that if, as a group, a nation followed the Torah prescription society would function at an optimal level and all needs of society would be taken care of for the most part (assuming a fair and equitable distribution network).
We are not living in a normal and healthy society. Many people don't feel the need to be responsible for themselves for various reasons. The reasons might range from ideological to laziness, from feeling entitled to perceived religious prohibitions. On the other end of the spectrum many business people are toiling away dishonestly at worst or just overworking themselves (and others) at best and justifying their lives and lifestyles by all the people that they support and all the charity they give. Organizations that needn't exist in a normal healthy functioning society need to exist because of the ill health of the society. These organizations are competing for the same limited amount of dollars with the unhealthy individual charity receivers. Institutions such as schools that service both the wealthy and the poor that, in a normal healthy society should be able to cover their budgets with their service fees, cannot due to the imbalance of the non payers and the payers. The payers are giving their charity away to other services that needn't exist and demand that the individual charity receivers pay their "fair share" (tuition) for the services provided as they do not want to be mandated to subsidize those non-payers. Bottom line, its all topsy-turvy.
A moratorium on charity, as harsh as it sounds, would accomplish many things. It would force the wealthy to have to look in the proverbial mirror every morning and justify their existence. They will not be able to say to themselves that they have to run out every day morning to night and be part of the rat race because so many others need them. They will have to spend time with their families and not ignore them and allow their families to grow up in healthier environments. They would have to use their wealth to actually pay tuition and other expenses for services provided to them rather than run around the world looking for causes that make them feel good. The more egregious dishonest business people will not be able to justify the means by the purported 'ends" because there will be no "ends". The self serving arrogance of the philanthropists will be a strangled to death. People will have to start measuring their self worth by their actual deeds and not by their ability to drown out their wickedness in seas of philanthropy. One will have to try very hard to justify his staying late in the office to "make another dollar" if he already had enough to cover his own expenses. Maybe at that point he goes out to do something that can actually benefit his soul.
It would force the needy-by-choice to become more responsible. We know desperation to be the mother of innovation. Maybe it can soon become the mother of personal responsibility. Religious or ideological values notwithstanding it will become incumbent upon the one with those values to fund their own lifestyle and not make it a burden of society. We all feel somewhat entitled but we also all have to eat. If one has to work hard to finance his religious lifestyle of his choosing he will come to appreciate that lifestyle so much more. This will increase the diligince of that idealogical/religous lifestyle not diminish it.
The cost will be heavy. There are many people that fall through the cracks for no fault of their own. How will they survive the moratorium? There are many worthwhile organizations that need and deserve funding that may not be able to survive the moratorium period. However the ones that survive will emerge stronger.
Is the cost worth the long term benefit? I say yes. You might disagree but at least we are looking at things rationally.
I would impose a moratorium on Tzedaka giving for a certain limited amount of time. Sounds harsh. However, before any criticism, I would like to undertake a cost benefit analysis .
In a normal healthy society where people understand that they have to take care of themselves and personal responsibility is a given you will end up with a normal bell-curve distribution of wealth. The majority of people will make a living, some won't and others will make a lot more than they need. Lets assume a typical normal expected distribution. Approximately 80% will earn enough to support themselves and their families. What will be left is 10% wealthy and 10% in poverty.
The Torah mandates that one give 10% of their earnings to Tzedaka. It is fair to assume that if, as a group, a nation followed the Torah prescription society would function at an optimal level and all needs of society would be taken care of for the most part (assuming a fair and equitable distribution network).
We are not living in a normal and healthy society. Many people don't feel the need to be responsible for themselves for various reasons. The reasons might range from ideological to laziness, from feeling entitled to perceived religious prohibitions. On the other end of the spectrum many business people are toiling away dishonestly at worst or just overworking themselves (and others) at best and justifying their lives and lifestyles by all the people that they support and all the charity they give. Organizations that needn't exist in a normal healthy functioning society need to exist because of the ill health of the society. These organizations are competing for the same limited amount of dollars with the unhealthy individual charity receivers. Institutions such as schools that service both the wealthy and the poor that, in a normal healthy society should be able to cover their budgets with their service fees, cannot due to the imbalance of the non payers and the payers. The payers are giving their charity away to other services that needn't exist and demand that the individual charity receivers pay their "fair share" (tuition) for the services provided as they do not want to be mandated to subsidize those non-payers. Bottom line, its all topsy-turvy.
A moratorium on charity, as harsh as it sounds, would accomplish many things. It would force the wealthy to have to look in the proverbial mirror every morning and justify their existence. They will not be able to say to themselves that they have to run out every day morning to night and be part of the rat race because so many others need them. They will have to spend time with their families and not ignore them and allow their families to grow up in healthier environments. They would have to use their wealth to actually pay tuition and other expenses for services provided to them rather than run around the world looking for causes that make them feel good. The more egregious dishonest business people will not be able to justify the means by the purported 'ends" because there will be no "ends". The self serving arrogance of the philanthropists will be a strangled to death. People will have to start measuring their self worth by their actual deeds and not by their ability to drown out their wickedness in seas of philanthropy. One will have to try very hard to justify his staying late in the office to "make another dollar" if he already had enough to cover his own expenses. Maybe at that point he goes out to do something that can actually benefit his soul.
It would force the needy-by-choice to become more responsible. We know desperation to be the mother of innovation. Maybe it can soon become the mother of personal responsibility. Religious or ideological values notwithstanding it will become incumbent upon the one with those values to fund their own lifestyle and not make it a burden of society. We all feel somewhat entitled but we also all have to eat. If one has to work hard to finance his religious lifestyle of his choosing he will come to appreciate that lifestyle so much more. This will increase the diligince of that idealogical/religous lifestyle not diminish it.
The cost will be heavy. There are many people that fall through the cracks for no fault of their own. How will they survive the moratorium? There are many worthwhile organizations that need and deserve funding that may not be able to survive the moratorium period. However the ones that survive will emerge stronger.
Is the cost worth the long term benefit? I say yes. You might disagree but at least we are looking at things rationally.
posted by funnyfundamentalist at 9:22 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home