[sgift]

The alternative would have been to tax them more and use the tax results to help people. Let's compare:

Taxes:

  - Predictable income
  - Democratic control over the spending
  - Big risk of misuse due to lobbying

Charity:

  - No predictability, depends on the whim of those who could spend
  - No democratic control
  - Small risk of misuse due to lobbying

I welcome everyone to add to both lists. From my comment history it should be pretty clear that I'm not a fan of hoping that those with money are in a charitable mood, but I know there's a strong faction with an opposing view of the world, which could help balancing such a list.

[LyndsySimon]

- Taxes are largely avoidable by those with sufficient wealth.

- Taxes reduce economic development by those who control capital.

- Taxes reduce charitable giving, especially by those in the upper middle class.

- Charity doesn't require the implication of violence for noncompliance.

- Charity encourages more direct management and oversight by those who give.

I would also argue that "No democratic control" is not true for charity, but rather that control is biased in favor of those who control capital.

> I welcome everyone to add to both lists. From my comment history it should be pretty clear that I'm not a fan of hoping that those with money are in a charitable mood, but I know there's a strong faction with an opposing view of the world, which could help balancing such a list.

Note that my suggestions are not accusatory, but in the spirit of this statement.