• Yes, Charities are very sensitive and they should

    The Charities now a days didn't refer to volunteer and tender values, and they are attachments to political parties plus some government found that those Charities have a relation with some terrorist attacks. However, civil society activists believe that these exceptions should not be generalized and they have taken pretexts to disrupt the civil action, sparking controversy in the country is not yet over, and is renewed after any terrorist attack.

  • All powerful institutions should be scrutinised.

    While the vast majority of charities carry out good deeds and do not need to have any of their work restricted, there are some individuals who use charities as a means for money laundering or as a front for private enterprise which allows them to avoid paying the correct amount of tax. For these reasons alone, philanthropic enterprises should be more closely watched.

  • Government Oversight of Charities

    Government, in the form of the IRS, encourages people to donate to charities by giving people a tax break in exchange for donating time and money to charities. By giving people tax breaks, the government is in essence taking a "pay cut." It thus follows that the government should have at least some degree of oversight control over charities.

  • No, government oversight would only slow charity down.

    The government isn't very efficient, in my opinion. In their attempt to improve healthcare, they've made it a lot more difficult in many ways. I would be afraid of the same thing happening to charities, were the government more involved. While it's important to ensure charities aren't breaking the law and cheating people out of money, it's also important to ensure they're able to flourish without governmental procedure and minutae holding it back.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.