Support for measures convinces me that supporters of tax-funded and operated charities really do not care about the causes they supposedly support. Rather, supporting government charities are a way to shirk the responsibility to make sure your charitable donations is spent wisely. It’s more like phony compassion and making the appearance that you care. As I <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/brian-t-schwartz/questioning-your-compassi_b_574030.html” target=”_blank”>wrote at the Huffington Post:

Why does being compassionate mean supporting government-run schools and health plans (or charitable causes)? This makes little sense if you view these programs as government-run charities. Would you agree to perpetually donate a portion of your monthly income to the same charity – regardless of its effectiveness? If the charity is doing a lousy job, wouldn’t you want the freedom to find a better one?

By supporting government-run charities like Medicaid and tax-funded schools, you relinquish this freedom. You could try to improve their performance through the political process. But this is grossly inefficient and ineffective compared to using on-line charity rating services to find a charity that deserves your donations.

Compulsory charity is also unfair:

Every dollar taxpayers must “donate” to government charities is one less dollar for voluntary charities. Is this fair?  Increased taxes to fund the welfare state have historically crowded out private donations. Why not let each taxpayer choose the charity?

I propose charity tax credits as an alternative to forcing everyone to donate to the same charity. For more on this, read the whole article: <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/brian-t-schwartz/questioning-your-compassi_b_574030.html” target=”_blank”>Questioning Your “Compassionate” Politics.

Also see my article in the Daily Camera about a similar measure, the so-called “Worthy Cause Tax,” which was on the 2008 ballot. It begins:

Would you call the police on someone who didn’t donate to a charity that you consider to be a “worthy cause”?  If not, then you should oppose County Issue 1B in this November’s election, which would extend the so-called “Worthy Cause” sales tax.  This tax is immoral — regardless of how worthy the causes are. It is compulsory charity, or charity at gun-point. It is intolerant to people’s values and unfair to charities that must earn our donations. It undermines both the responsibility of donors and the accountability of non-profits that receive forced donations.

Read more:  “Worthy Cause” Tax, It’s Not Your Penny to Give.

Remember, the issue is not whether these programs are good and worthwhile.  It’s about choice, freedom, and responsibility.  If you think they do a good job, donate to them on your own and tell others about the programs you like. Don’t ask government to force everyone else to donate to the same causes you do.

So may object that “we all benefit” from what some charities or government programs do. But this does not mean government should force us to finance them. After all, we benefit when other drivers have good brakes on their cars and trucks, but this doesn’t mean we should pay for them.

Voters should oppose Ballot Issue 1B, the “Worthy Cause” tax –no matter how worthy the causes are.  The sales tax for Boulder County non-profits is wrong and should end. It’s wrong for the taxpayers forced to “donate.” It’s wrong for a community that benefits from a marketplace of accountable and effective charities. And it’s wrong for the very people these organizations are supposed to help.

Giving to a charity can be virtuous.  It’s a form of self-expression that promotes your values. Donors can feel pride and integrity by taking action to support causes important to them.  But the Worthy Cause tax forces taxpayers to donate to charities — that other people choose.  There’s no virtue or compassion in taking someone’s money by force, even if you donate it to charity.  That’s the essence of Ballot Issue 1B.  If you don’t comply with authorities by donating to the charities they choose, you can end up behind bars.

Ballot Issue 1B is unfair.  Every dollar you’re forced to donate to politically-favored charities is one less dollar for other charities that must earn your donation.  Compare such voluntary fundraising with the political fundraising by “Citizens for a Worthy Cause,” who have spent thousands of dollars promoting Issue 1B so government can collect mandatory “donations.”  These aren’t “citizens,” but the very charities that have received or could receive the Worthy Cause tax revenue.  Just as we object when businesses use government to gain unfair advantage over their competitors, we should also object when non-profits do the same.

While we do not often think of charities competing in a marketplace, it’s essential for ensuring that non-profits are accountable. Donors want their donations put to good use.  There’s no such accountability when government officials choose which non-profits receive your money. The organizations get your money regardless of whether you think they’re doing a good job.  Hence the disengaged attitude of “I guess the government’s taking care of it.”  By empowering government, you disempower yourself.

Paraphrasing LendingTree, “when charities compete, we all win.”  Diligent donors use on-line resources like CharityNavigator or GuideStar, which evaluate charities’ performance.  GuideStar explains how we win:

donors seek out and compare charities, monitor their performances, and give with greater confidence; nonprofit organizations pursue more effective operating practices, embrace greater accountability, and enjoy lower fund-raising costs; and society benefits from a more efficient, generous and well-targeted allocation of resources to the nonprofit sector.

Supporters of the tax claim that the non-profits couldn’t raise the money without it.  But what if, instead of voting for 1B, the majority required to approve it donated their own money?

This year’s Boulder County Budget includes $3.5 million in the “Worthy Cause Fund.”   Assuming the same voter turnout as the 2004 election, 1B needs about 80,000 votes to pass.  That’s a $43 donation per “Yes” vote.  And it’s tax-deductible, so it’s more like $30.

Are we so two-faced in the voting booth?  Would a majority vote to force others to donate to charities that they wouldn’t support themselves?  Is that the Boulder County you want?

If you plan to vote for 1B, realize that it forces your neighbors to donate to charity.  Instead, donate your own money and encourage others to do the same.  I’ve made it easy: Go to www.wakalix.com and click on the “voluntary donations” link on the right side.  You’ll see a list of charities with links to their donation web pages.

Decide for yourself which causes are worthy, and donate your own dollars.  And remember, your neighbors’ dollars are not yours to give. Vote No on Ballot Issue 1B.

Again they use shallow logic: They regard some non-profits as advancing a good cause (which I do not dispute), therefore it’s OK for government to force everyone to fund it.  Something’s missing here.  Namely, respect, tolerance and property rights.  Who are these people to tell Boulder County Citizens what causes are worthy, and to make it a crime for them not to donate to it?

Supporters of the tax claim that the non-profits couldn’t raise the money without it.  But what if, instead of voting for 1B, the majority required to approve it donated their own money?

This year’s Boulder County Budget includes $3.5 million in the “Worthy Cause Fund.”   Assuming the same voter turnout as the 2004 election, 1B needs about 80,000 votes to pass.  That’s a $43 donation per “Yes” vote.  And it’s tax-deductible, so it’s more like $30.

Are we so two-faced in the voting booth?  Would a majority vote to force others to donate to charities that they wouldn’t support themselves?  Is that the Boulder County you want?

To donate to these charities on your own, I’ve made it easy.  Click here.  It lists the special interests who are funding the Ballot Issue 1B campaign.  As I’ve mentioned, they just happen to be the ones who have received the tax revenue.  So for them it’s an investment.  (See, “investment” = tax, just as politicians say.)  Anyway, the page contains a dozen links to donation pages for these organizations.

Brian Schwartz, a member of the Camera’s editorial advisory board, authored the commentary saying that asking voters to approve ballot issue 1B and renew the “Worthy Cause” sales tax this November would continue to be “immoral-regardless of how worthy the cause.” He made a number of astute observations including offering an opinion that simply having a “compulsory charity tax represents the tyranny of the majority” which is unfair to a number of local nonprofits that might not be able to receive one of the few “government subsidies” the tax would support.

There’s little doubt that many of the concerns Schwartz expressed are both heartfelt and valid. Imposing the will of the majority, however, is certainly not without precedent in Progressive Boulder …

It’s difficult to dispute many of the arguments Schwartz makes…

A penny helps a single mother get affordable child care, so she can work to support her family.

A penny helps an uninsured or under-insured family get access to the medical care they need.

A penny helps feed a family.

That penny is provided by Worthy Cause 1B – a .05 percent tax that equals one cent on each $20 purchase.

No.  That penny is provided by retailers, who get it from their customers.  The so-called “Worthy Cause 1B” is a law that makes it a crime for customers not to give this penny.  The so-called “Worthy Cause” tax provided government force, a threat, to all those who might choose to give their pennies to charitable organizations of their choosing, rather than to a charity that government officials prefer.

Boulder County Ballot Issue 1B is not about whether the causes are worthy.  It’s about using government to force your neighbors to donate to a cause that you deem as “worthy,” which means your neighbors have less money to donate to causes they think are worthy.  As I’ve written before, Ballot Issue 1B is intolerant, arrogant, and elitist.

This tax is sponsored by the so-called “Citizens for a Worthy Cause.”  These are not just ordinary citizens, but the very same non-profits that stand to benefit from the tax, at the expense of non-profits who refrain from using government to raise money.

In a letter published in the Boulder Daily Camera, Rich Miller writes:

Citizens for a Worthy Cause sent out a glossy mailing this past week, encouraging voters to approve Boulder County 1B.  Issue 1B will continue an existing sales tax and allow county commissioners to distribute our tax dollars to the charities of their choice. … And who are these Citizens for a Worthy Cause? No individual citizens contributed, only non-profits who stand to benefit from 1B at our expense.

Rich Miller has made an excellent insight. (Ralph Shnelvar has also noticed.)

Ten of the fifteen organizations that donated to Citizens for a Worthy Cause have received revenue from this sales tax.  These ten organizations have donated almost $27,000 to extend the tax this year, and have received more than $1.8 million in sales tax revenues from previous years.  I flush out the details below. (As Rich also did in his on-line comments.)

In a previous article I made the case that Ballot Initiative 1B, which would extend the “Worthy Cause” sales tax, “is immoral — regardless of how worthy the causes are.”  As a compulsory charity, “it is intolerant to people’s values and unfair to charities that must earn our donations. It undermines both the responsibility of donors and the accountability of non-profits that receive forced donations.” Those who voted for the measure could have raised the money in this year’s Worthy Cause Fund had they each donated $50.  Instead, they force us all to donate.

Colorado’s Secretary of State office lists the contributors to Citizens for a Worthy Cause here.  Boulder County lists the recipients of the tax revenues here.   What follows are the dollar figures for each organization, and links to where you can make a voluntary donation.

Attention, Inc.
Donation to sales tax ballot issue campaign: $1,000
Funding from sales tax: $60,000 (2006, via Attention Homes)
(Volunteer or donate )

Boulder County Advocates for Transitional Housing
Donation to sales tax ballot issue campaign: $1,000
Funding from sales tax: $550,000 (2008)
(make a voluntary donation)
Funding to their collaborating agencies:
(agency names linked to respective donation pages)

• Boulder County Aids Project: $75,000 (2006)
• Boulder County Mental Health Center: $120,000 (2008)
• Boulder Shelter for the Homeless: $25,000 (2007), $75,000 (2006), $55,000 (2005)
• Center for People with Disabilities: $25,000 (2006)

Boulder Day Nursery Association
Donation to sales tax ballot issue campaign: $5,000
Funding from sales tax: $25,000 (2007), $75,000 (2006), $45,000 (2005), $50,000 (2004)
(make a voluntary donation)

Boulder Valley Women’s Health Center
Donation to sales tax ballot issue campaign: $5,000
Funding from sales tax: $235,000 (2008), $75,000 (2007)
(make a voluntary donation)

Center for People with Disabilities
Donation to sales tax ballot issue campaign: $2,000
Funding from sales tax: $25,000 (2006)
(make a voluntary donation)

Intercambio de Comunidades
Donation to sales tax ballot issue campaign: $250
Funding from sales tax: $175,000 (2007)
(make a voluntary donation)

Immigrant Legal Center of Boulder County
Donation to sales tax ballot issue campaign: $500
Funding from sales tax: $48,546 (2008), $50,000 (2007)
(make a voluntary donation)

Special Transit
Donation to sales tax ballot issue campaign: $10,0000
Funding from sales tax: $25,000 (2004)
(make a voluntary donation )

YWCA
Donation to sales tax ballot issue campaign: $2,000
Funding from sales tax: $75,000 (2006), $70,000 (2005), $100,000 (2004)
(make a voluntary donation)

Update: The so-called “Citizens for a Worthy Cause” that support this are really the very organizations that receive the tax revenue.  See here.

Ballot Issue 1B: It’s not Your Penny to Give
by Brian T. Schwartz

Would you call the police on someone who didn’t donate to a charity that you consider to be a “worthy cause”?  If not, then you should oppose County Issue 1B in this November’s election, which would extend the so-called “Worthy Cause” sales tax.  This tax is immoral — regardless of how worthy the causes are. It is compulsory charity, or charity at gun-point. It is intolerant to people’s values and unfair to charities that must earn our donations. It undermines both the responsibility of donors and the accountability of non-profits that receive forced donations.

The compulsory charity tax represents the tyranny of the majority. Recipients of the tax revenues are politically-favored charitable organizations in Boulder County. Generous Boulder County residents can and do donate to these organizations. But in 2000, a half-percent majority of voters supported the measure, which makes it a crime for Boulder County consumers not to donate to these charities. You can end up in behind bars.

This is an offensive display of arrogance and intolerance. In 2000, almost 67,000 voters voted for the tax.  Apparently it’s not enough for these supporters to donate to charities they deem “worthy.”  They asked government to impose their values on everyone else, as if they are anointed to declare what the real “worthy causes” are.  But there’s no compassion in spending other people’s money by force.

Compulsory charity is unfair to non-profits who do not receive government subsidies. Every dollar you’re taxed to fund politically-favored charities is a dollar you could have given to a charity that actually earned your donation.  We appropriately disapprove when government legislates to give certain businesses advantage over competitors. We should also object to politically-favored government-subsidized charities.

Compulsory charity undermines your responsibility to promote your chosen values. Say you care about whether people receive adequate health care, housing, or education. The last thing you want is for government to address the issue. Government is unaccountable to you as a donor; it gets your tax dollars even if you think it’s squandering your tax dollars.  This lack of accountability gives government-funded charities little incentive to be efficient or effective.  By empowering government, you disempower yourself.

Compare this to donating to a charity yourself.  You’re the customer. Charities know that to keep your donations coming, they must demonstrate that they are a worthy cause. You can read the organization’s literature and website, talk to their employees, or read performance evaluations by Charity Navigator and GuideStar.org.

GuideStar envisions “an increasingly efficient nonprofit marketplace where donors seek out and compare charities, monitor their performances, and give with greater confidence; nonprofit organizations pursue more effective operating practices, embrace greater accountability, and enjoy lower fund-raising costs; and society benefits from a more efficient, generous and well-targeted allocation of resources to the nonprofit sector.”

Supporters of the “Worthy Cause” tax claim that without it, worthy causes would not have sufficient funds.  But the alternative to the compulsory charity tax is not “doing nothing.”  The alternative is to take responsibility for supporting your values by donating money yourself and persuading others to donate.

Remember the 67,000 voters who originally supported the tax?  If they thought these causes are so important, they should put their money where their vote is.  This year’s Boulder County budget includes $3.5 million in the “Worthy Cause Fund.”  Instead of voting to force their neighbors to donate to charity, a $50 tax-deductible donation would provide this revenue.

Another common argument in support of compulsory charity is that “we all benefit from it.” But do we?  The poor also pay the sales tax, but could benefit more by using their hard-earned money to provide for their families.  That $3.5 million can create other values, either through other charities or businesses that create jobs.

In any case, just because you benefit from something does not mean you must pay for it.  We benefit if others have food, shelter, clothing, and good hygiene, but this doesn’t mean government should force us to buy food, shelter, clothing, and soap for others.

Some claim that these are necessities of life are “rights.”  They are not. Rights are freedoms of action, not entitlements to what others produce.

The “Worthy Cause” tax empowers authorities to decide for others what causes are more “worthy” than others.  This is an elitist and intolerant, and has no place in a civil society.  Ballot Issue 1B isn’t about “a penny for a worthy cause,” it’s about compulsory charity.  If you want to donate your own penny, that’s great.  But your neighbors’ pennies are not yours to give.

How could anyone possibly vote against Referendum 1A, the “Worthy Cause Tax”? Referendum 1A would extend an existing 0.05-percent sales tax for Boulder County nonprofit human service agencies, and these charities’ undoubtedly promote worthy causes?

But if you are tolerant of other people’s values and causes they want to support, a “no” vote is the only option. This referendum is not about whether you, a single voter, want to give “a penny for a worthy cause.” It’s about whether you want to force, through power of law, your neighbors to support a particular set of charities instead of their own favorite charities.

While supporters of the referendum truly want to support what they consider worthy causes, their ends do not justify their means. In effect, the sales tax will make it a crime for people not to donate to certain charities. There is no benevolence or compassion in forcing people to support another’s worthy cause. Instead, it’s arrogant and intolerant.

Some claim that without government support, these nonprofits could not operate. But governments do not create wealth and give it to charities; rather, they are coercive middlemen between taxpayers and charities. This argument for compulsory charity insults both nonprofits and their benefactors, as it claims that people would not donate voluntarily. It implies that either those charities are not truly “worthy causes,” or that Boulder residents are too cold-hearted and uncaring to support them.

Boulder is known for its socially responsible citizens who seek to solve local and global problems by donating time and money to a variety of nonprofit organizations — each of them “a worthy cause” to those involved. But by seeking tax dollars, Referendum 1A supporters are implicitly saying that their causes are “more worthy” than others, and government should force people to support them.

According to GuideStar, a national database of nonprofit organizations, there are more than 300 human service charities within a 25-mile radius of Boulder. Yet, according to the referendum’s official Web site, “your penny,” and your neighbors’, will directly benefit only 11 politically connected nonprofits — some of which already receive state and federal tax dollars. And what of hundreds of other nonprofits not among the chosen few? “Nonprofit agencies not earmarked for funds already” can bid for it. That is, the government forcibly takes money from these charities and their donors, and who then have to beg for it back.

Tax-funded charities, the nonprofit equivalent of corporate welfare, have become special-interest lobbyists seeking government plunder. Instead of peacefully coexisting by seeking voluntary donations from diverse segments of the community, charities seek tax revenue at each other’s expense. It’s the law of the jungle: Kill or be killed. In the end, voluntary charities suffer, as documented by historian David Beito, author of “From Mutual Aid to the Welfare State.”

Most Boulder residents rightly oppose government policies such as tax breaks, special licenses, tariffs and subsidies that benefit specific companies. Known as “big business,” it gives politically connected companies an unfair advantage over their competitors. These “corporate fat cats” can be sluggish and inefficient, but still profitable, and drive some competitors out of business.

Referendum 1A is similar; it benefits “big charity.” Government “charities” such as welfare programs and schools have a guaranteed source of revenue: taxes. We have no legal choice but to fund these charities, regardless of how worthy they are compared to other nonprofits. Hence, despite the noblest intentions, government “big charities,” like government-created monopolies, have little incentive to be efficient or innovative.

Consider Philanthropic Research, Inc., itself a nonprofit organization. With its GuideStar database of nonprofits, it “envisions the evolution of an increasingly efficient nonprofit marketplace where donors seek out and compare charities, monitor their performances, and give with greater confidence; nonprofit organizations pursue more effective operating practices, embrace greater accountability, and enjoy lower fund-raising costs; and society benefits from a more efficient, generous and well-targeted allocation of resources to the nonprofit sector.”

Compulsory charity thwarts all of these goals while the bloated and unaccountable big charities thrive.

This is the tragedy of compulsory charity: It kills compassion and voluntary giving. People stop taking responsibility for improving their world by investing time or money in efficient and effective charities (or other ventures) that tackle problems most important to them. Instead, government “frees us” of this responsibility, and all but the most conscientious people assume that any social problem is not their problem — as “government is taking care of it” with other people’s money.

One might argue that an elitist cabal cannot simply impose this tax; a majority of voters must approve. Yet if it’s wrong for a minority to deny choice to the majority, how can it be ethical for a unified majority to deny choices to a minority of individuals who think differently? Democracy should not be an end in itself; that’s mob rule. Let it be a means to an end — political freedom, a prerequisite for a tolerant, civic-minded, benevolent community.

Your neighbor’s penny is not yours to donate. Choose your own worthy cause, and vote “no” on 1A.

Brian T. Schwartz is a doctoral candidate in electrical engineering at the University of Colorado, where he is also active with the Campus Libertarians.

Copyright 2004, The Daily Camera. All Rights Reserved.