On: Structural studies of the global networks exposed ...

[mikorym]

I think one answer is tax cuts for charity.

If I can give my tax money to someone of my choosing, I think it may incentivise people to feel better about where the money is going.

To be clear, not making your tax payments less, but rather choosing where it goes. Of course, if you have a network of nonprofits, this become a bit grey. In the USA I have gotten the impression that people do try to game the idea of nonprofits.

[Jenk → mikorym]

Taxes became a thing precisely because this model failed. The utopia of "common sense and decency" kicking in and ensuring public services are well funded is a false hope and does not work. Simply put, there is always a significant element in the populace that won't pay if they can get away with it, and making taxes optional just gives them an easy way to avoid contributing at all.

[nobody9999 → mikorym]

>I think one answer is tax cuts for charity.

>To be clear, not making your tax payments less, but rather choosing where it goes.

Giving to charities reduces your tax burden, at least in the US.

In fact, you can generally deduct up to half your income[0] based on charitable contributions.

Does that meet your desire to better direct your tax dollars?

[0] https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/charitable-organiz...

[mikorym → nobody9999]

This I think is pretty much exactly how I think it should be. Half sounds decent.

But... I don't live in the US. We pay tax and received no services in return.