[at-l] AT Fund On Income Tax Form

[nealb@midlandstech.com (William Neal)]

Actually SC has several "universal" check offs on their income tax forms:
One for nature; one for children; one for the elderly; and some others I've
forgot.

A check off could be set up with a time limit (no more than ten years), and
with a sizeable portion going into an endowment fund to continue the "cause"
after the time limit has been reached.  And non check-off monies could be
encouraged from big donors to build up the fund.  Yes I realize that there
are such funds now (aren't there?).  But an endowment "started" on the
income tax form would raise more public awareness and big donors LOVE to
give to causes in the public eye.

Nor would it have to necessarily affect the normal budgeting function.
Probably the AT gets little government funds anyway.  If they did, we would
have a corridor 1 mile wide from Georgia to Maine with fences on the
boundaries all the way.  And it could be included in the fund's "laws" that
the money would only be used to buy and protect the corridor.  It could not
be used to "plant flowers", "build high-tech toilets" on Springer, pave 10
miles of trail from any handicapped acessible trail head; etc.

Many world governments use "check-off" type donations to further worthy
causes.  In some countries (and the US has recently started doing it), you
buy stamps, and part of the stamp's cost goes to a charity fund for a
specific cause: I believe our first stamp was for breast cancer.

As to a catastrophic fund...  Good idea.

IF such check-offs were allowed, a rules should be drawn up to limit the
number of check-offs and the kind of causes and make sure that they are
"broad based" and not narrowly limited (the footpath from the Washington
Monument to the nearest toilet). It can be done.

One final note, if the government became involved, there is danger.  But if
vols start the ball rolling, then the government might not muck it up too
bad.  But think on this, it was vols who started the AT.  It was vol
organizations who pushed it.  But without the government's involvement,
there would be no AT today.  Want to bet that the ridgelines we walk would
be covered with glass boxes?  That the AT would have to meander all over the
east coast to get from GA. to Maine?  That there would significant sections
of road walks because there was no-one willing to let us walk the lands?
Just think on it before replying.

William, The Turtle



-----Original Message-----
From: Orange Bug [mailto:orangebug74@yahoo.com]
Sent: Saturday, December 14, 2002 4:58 PM
To: RoksnRoots@aol.com
Cc: AT-L@backcountry.net
Subject: Re: [at-l] AT Fund On Income Tax Form


This is the sort of mentality that would get any AT initiative derided
as coming from a bunch of obsessed nuts. True, perhaps, but not a
politically attractive idea.

I would oppose it. The only "check off" is a fund to aid presidential
elections - arguably of benefit to each individual if it were
accompanied by campaign finance reform. An AT check off would benefit
directly only those states and localities containing the AT. A check
off would send money to the AT without regard to the budgeting process
- allowing further neglect of the entire national park system while an
eastern resource was allowed to be buffed and shined.

It is far better to support the budgeting process to improve
maintenance and improvement of services in all of the national parks,
forests, BLM areas and monuments. If you want to talk about check offs
for special interest groups, how about a universal catastrophic health
benefit for all citizens?

Bill...

--- RoksnRoots@aol.com wrote:
> ... The idea being that this kind of mentality has lead to the
> need to establish the fund in the first place. Let's save the AT
> first...

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com