W000153
Tuesday, November 06, 2001 9:18 PM
Fairly compensating victims while not penalizing charities.
Folks,
When I pay my taxes, I expect my representatives to provide help our
neighbors in need by providing at least minimal support during times of
crisis.
When I voluntarily give money to charities, I expect them to help our
neighbors in a timely way, often exceeding the threshold for need that I
would have the government use with other peoples involuntarily collected
money. I do not expect my voluntary contributions to benefit the government,
easing the burden of all tax payers.
When I buy insurance I expect these firms to fulfill their commercial
obligations to me.
If I were to become a victim, I would not expect to be able to reap a
windfall by collecting multiple times to meet the same need. Coordination of
payment is reasonable.
There is no dilemma because the distribution rule is simple:
- The government should determine need without regard to insurance and
charity.
- From this is subtracted insurance and charity received.
- The charity is reimbursed by the government for money provided to the
victim by the charity.
Let's analyze the consequences:
- Private charitable contributions for victim relief don't end up becoming
government relief.
- Victims do not receive a windfall.
- Charities are have incentive to help victims immediately, rather than wait
until after government disbursements.
- Charity monies help twice, first by responding more quickly than the
government agencies, then after being reimbursed, by providing additional
relief beyond the minimum provided by government programs.
- Charities are incented to share their records with government since the
reward for preventing a windfall to individual victims will be a
reimbursement of prior contributions.
This may appear to be expensive to the government, however, if charitable
contributors find that their money is simply reducing government
obligations, their contributions will dry up.
Regards,
Individual Comment
Glen Ridge, NJ