I don't believe that someone who sets up an institution should be able to take out the money from the institution or pay dividends to shareholders. I am not saying that institutions should be set up for charity.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
In the future society, i.e. the communist society that we want to build, we are not going to establish charity institution, as there shall be no needy or poor, and no alms-giving and alms-taking.
We have the right as individuals to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity; but as members of Congress we have no right to appropriate a dollar of the public money.
There is a place and a time for philanthropy, and there is only so much money you can give away.
I think that charity is a tricky thing, because a lot of times, people equate charity with handouts. I don't believe in handouts.
Much corporate giving is charitable in nature rather than philanthropic.
Charity is very difficult to do right. Thinking through what people need: You can't start a charity without that. It's like starting a business without the product.
Charity is injurious unless it helps the recipient to become independent of it.
Strangely, charity sometimes gets dismissed, as if it is ineffective, inappropriate or even somehow demeaning to the recipient. 'This isn't charity,' some donors take pains to claim, 'This is an investment.' Let us recognize charity for what it is at heart: a noble enterprise aimed at bettering the human condition.
Companies are not charitable enterprises: They hire workers to make profits. In the United States, this logic still works. In Europe, it hardly does.
Charities must treat donors as if they were shareholders.