Fair Market Value on Donated Time
Increase the efficiencies of communities by giving a fair market value to donated time. When comparing the the two values of time vs money, time is more valuable. It can never be given back and once it is spent that time is gone forever. Yet time is often treated as if it were an abundant and unlimited source. Time donated by individuals or a corporation is treated with less value than monetary donations given by corporations or individuals.
TIME IS NOT MONEY IN ALL THINGS BUT IT SHOULD BE
In a capitalist society, time should be money in all things. In the U.S., time is treated as money in for-profit ventures that benefit the for-profit entity directly. Employers use time to determine paychecks. Professional tradesmen use time to determine fees for services. Time is even used to defend cuts to community benefits when the time to complete paperwork for an employer is too burdensome. When it comes to the hours logged in by concerned citizens who give their time for the benefit of their communities’ prosperity, time is not treated as money but an expectation of charity. Because of this expectation, our nation lacks a way to measure work effort that does not yield a paycheck. This lack of quantification makes false stereotypes of laziness toward anyone not receiving a paycheck a common identifier.
EVERYTHING CAN BE ASSIGNED A MONETARY VALUE
If there are “no free lunches” then why does the communities continually benefit from the donated time of its citizens without allowing any financial compensation for that donation? Anything that can be broken down into increments can be assigned a monetary value. $.05/minute is $3.00/hour, that’s a little less than half of minimum wage. How difficult would it be to allow a citizen to pay off their yearly tax debt with community service? If the citizens were given the same rewards for their contributions of time that corporations receive for their contributions of money we would have a circulatory economy that self-benefits everyone in the community.
CUTTING BENEFITS REQUIRES AN ALTERNATE FORM OF FINANCIAL RELIEF
If the goal of legislators is to cut community benefits because they are too costly, then they should offer the citizens in the community the opportunity to reduce their tax burdens by getting compensated for the volunteer work that must now substitute what federal and state funding originally paid for. If legislators do not offer this alternative financial relief, then hardships created by ignoring those needs will be felt across the state. Neglecting the needs of people in the community does not make the needs disappear, they make the overall effects of the hardships created worse. We live in an ecosystem, after all, everything is connected to each other.
Our nation should not strive to increase its profit margins while ignoring a majority of the people who live in the nation. If you reduce costs in one area than an alternative method of financial relief must be made available. Giving time that is donated for community benefits a fair market value is a start.