Guaranteed income programs let participants use funds however they see fit. Critics argue they’re not a good use of taxpayer dollars.
…
Guaranteed income programs have become more popular since the pandemic as dozens of cities across the country launched pilot programs using federal COVID-19 relief funds. Whereas other welfare funds like food stamps and housing vouchers provide assistance for specific expenses, guaranteed income programs allow recipients to decide how they spend the money. Researchers have found them to be an effective way to combat poverty.
In recent years, a handful of Texas cities and counties have piloted their own guaranteed income programs for low-income households. Financed by a combination of federal, local and philanthropic funds, Austin, San Antonio and El Paso County have collectively issued about $9 million in payments to roughly 1,500 households since 2020.
But the notion is facing stiff opposition from conservatives who say these programs are a bad use of taxpayers’ money and amount to government overreach. Attorney General Ken Paxton recently sued Harris County to block its guaranteed income program, Uplift Harris. The Texas Supreme Court indefinitely paused the pilot while the case goes to trial. Financed by funds from the American Rescue Plan Act, the program would have provided almost 2,000 households in the area’s poorest neighborhoods with $500 a month for 18 months.
If you’re referring to dollars given/promised to “charity,” a huge amount of that is done in a way that protects assets from taxes but primarily benefits the donor or the donor’s offspring.
Example: Warren Buffet has billions he has pledged to charity. However, when he dies it goes into a private charitable trust that conveniently employs his children and pays them millions a year for “administration” duties. The trust can donate stocks to charities, and there is a tax exemption for the “value” of the donation, reducing the tax burden of the trust further. Billionaire charity in the USA is a nearly-complete fiction which is actually more in line with the behavior discussed in this article.
I’m sure that plays a part, but I’m going off this link which seems more based on individual actions than overall donation amounts.