Correction and Adendum to "Charity.... our responsibility or Uncle Sam's?"

I mispoke about the tax % that Social Security and Medicare take from earned income. It is true the employee sees 7.65% taken out, however, and I feel stupid having not thought of this last night because we do own our own corporation and I am the payroll guy, the company that issues the paycheck also pays a matching 7.65%. In total, the federal government receives 15.3% of all income earned in the US for Social Security and Medicare. 15.3%!!!!!

To put that in perspective, 15.3% of a $100k income is $15,300 that the tax payer could use someplace else... Imagine if that $15,300 were used locally for the people you know to be in need? And that is just one person with one income. If the average income of a town of 50,000 people was around $35k (at 15.3%, $5,355) , and if only 20,000 of those people had jobs and took the money they're paying the federal government in SS and MC now and used it instead for local charity, that would be $107,100,000.00 in charity for that small town. I think they could take care of a few medical needs and hungry families. And that is only assuming that 40% of the total population are working.

A Wikepedia article (it's the best I could do, don't judge) cites the 2005 Census Bureau report claiming the average household income to be $44,389. It also claims there were 116 Million Households in 2006. (If the total US population is around 300Million, then 116M Households into 300M people comes to 2.58 people per household. We can then assume our town of 50,000 has 19,000 households)

So let's do the math with the new numbers. 50,000 people into 19,000 household with an average annual income of $44,389 taxed at 15.3% for SS and MC, could potentially use $129 Million dollars to help "widows and orphans". Not too far off from my shot in the dark.

Let's revist what Government Social Programs do. Because of their nature, one group of people receives money that has been legally taken from another group of a people; a polarization occurs between productive, and nonproductive citizens. This also helps create ungiving attitudes: "why should I give more, they already get part of my paycheck." In the current system, money is directly pulled from paychecks before the Taxed workers even have a chance to see it. There is no personal loss associated with it because the worker did not have to physically write the check to the IRS. And potentially the biggest problem with this system is that the Tax Payer never gets to see the end result of their tax dollars. In a private system, where personal dollars are freely given to people in need, the result of those gifts are openly evident. If it's an organization, they will promote themselves with campaigns showing you all the good things they've done with your money (while asking for more). If it's local, you'll see the immediate effects of the family down the street who is using your old used lawnmower because they couldn't afford one. And anyone who has experienced giving knows the euphoria that happens to the giver and is then encouraged to give more next time to somebody else.

In short, Government Social Programs create polarization and ungiving attitudes by taking the personal loss and reward out of the giving relationship.