[lbrent]

> The government is full of corruption and waste, they are innefective in matters that require an actual soul.

Something totally unheard of in charities or churches for that matter?

> What if you could take the percentage of taxes that you spend every year and choose whom to help with it.

I cannot see how this would not lead to a very disproportional distribution of welfare. Very few people, I guess, would rather give their money to rehabilitated murderers or sex offenders than to orphans or abused women for example.

[goggles99]

>Something totally unheard of in charities or churches for that matter?

The difference here is that charities can easily be replaced or you can choose a different one. There would definitely be oversight to expose problems and shut down fraudsters.

>I cannot see how this would not lead to a very disproportional distribution of welfare. Very few people, I guess, would rather give their money to rehabilitated murderers or sex offenders than to orphans or abused women for example.

You would be surprised. Sure those like you would give it to orphans and widows. Also, charities generally don't "turn down" people because they just got out of jail. If fact, I suppose that it could be mandated that they don't.

There are easy common sense rules for all these types of concerns.

[lbrent]

> Also, charities generally don't "turn down" people because they just got out of jail.

No, but there are many charities that serve a very specific purpose. And I would bet that there are far more who are involved in work with children than with convicts. Actually I know there are (I have my own limited experience in this specific area), but more to this later.

> Sure those like you would give it to orphans and widows.

I would be very surprised if "those like me" would not turn out to be in the vast majority. By the way, I picked rehabilitated criminals for a reason. During and for a while after university, I was living in a self sustained formerly occupied house and we has decided to reserve one floor for former prisoners to offer an easier start back into a regular life outside of social housing. Yet over the years due to people moving out and new people moving in and lost romantic ideas (who could have guessed that most people serving long time sentences are not highly educated and politically left-leaning) of how this living together would work, a majority of the house voted the former convicts out. Some of us tried to help to set up an alternative and work together with local welfare organizations or churches, but again they either lacked funding or met resistance of their members (mainly on the side of the churches). This experience let me to doubt your plans.

But something I would really love to see, and something you might probably be able to agree on too, would be some kind of mandatory community service. Maybe one or two weeks per year in an area of choice. I think that could result in more compassion and social cohesion than "just" giving money.