Charity Vs Welfare

[Yared]

In your opinion, is charity a viable alternative to welfare?


Keep in mind that:

No welfare -> lower taxes -> more money that can be spent.

 

[Lone Wolf]

Western "charity" is fake charity, Western corporate overlords send mouldy stale bread to the Third World countries, while eating pineapples that by right should belong to the Third World populace Western "welfare" is fake welfare - the money that go to the "western poor" is leeched of the truly poor of Third World Unless the West radically changes itself (and it won't - it's too soulless, greedy and materialistic for this), such state of affairs will continue

 

[Truronian]

We had several millennia of no welfare and the poor didn't receive anywhere near enough charity to keep them (literally) out of the gutters.

 

[Akka]

The "no taxes => more money to spend" crap is just wishfull thinking. The only real effect is concentrating more wealth at the top, not making it spend more.

Charity means that people in need are at the mercy of the whims of others. It also means they have to beg for getting enough money to live.
Welfare (non-abused of course) means that people have some rights and can keep their dignity. It also makes everyone part of the same society, participating to the common background.

It's not because someone lacks money that he should have to chose between begging and starving. Some bare minimum being assured by society in case of hardship is a much healthier alternative.

 

[Tani Coyote]

One could also argue that more welfare -> higher taxes(for the higher ups) -> more money that can be spent by a larger number of people.

I'll say, yes, in the right circumstances, charity is a viable alternative. It's arguably more efficient as, despite not being run for profit, charities do compete for donations, volunteers, etc. They have a commitment to making the most impact out of principle and to keep themselves operating.

Charity's only issue on par with welfare is financing; there's just not enough money being donated to make it 100% viable.

Now on the other hand, you have money collected via taxes that, rather than given directly to people, is given to the various charities. This could arguably create far more results from the same amount of cash. The issue is deciding which charities receive the money.

So yes, with the right financing, charity is more efficient and achieves the same results. But unfortunately, it often doesn't have the right financing.

 

[Munch]

In my opinion charity is not a viable alternative to welfare, principally because it allows the wealthy to decide where the money is spent.

 

[Tani Coyote]

In my opinion charity is not a viable alternative to welfare, principally because it allows the wealthy to decide where the money is spent.

If I recall, historically, the wealthy have trended towards opening/funding schools and soup kitchens.

...sounds fairly benign to me. School to aid your self-improvement and food to keep you alive while you work on it.

 

[ParadigmShifter]

Again, read The Ragged Trousered Philanthropists to see how charity replacing welfare operated.

 

[Merkinball]

Charity means that people in need are at the mercy of the whims of others. - Akka

Welfare means that people in need are the mercy of the whims of government.

Charity means that people in need are at the mercy of the whims of others. - Akka

How is this any different than welfare? I'm at the whims of others. If they want their mortgage paid for, I'm at their mercy. If they want to vote for more welfare, I'm at their mercy. If they want me to pay for their healthcare, I'm at their mercy.

Welfare (non-abused of course) means that people have some rights and can keep their dignity. It also makes everyone part of the same society, participating to the common background. - akka

How so? What dignity is there in getting a credit card from the government to pay for your food? What dignity is there having the money directly deposited in your bank account? Better yet, how does this possibly make everyone apart of the same society, participating to any sort of common background? If you want people to participate in society, then have them volunteer. Instead of having well to do liberals saying, "My taxes are enough, it's a burden off my back." Why don't they go into the city, see the people, meet the people they're trying to help, and cut them a check straight up? Instead of having people get credit cards to go buy groceries, why don't the kind liberal do-gooders bring food directly to the people they want to help? Why don't they go roll up their sleeves and work in a soup kitchen? Social welfare programs segregate society completely. It detaches people. It creates an us versus them mentality where the providers become jaded because they're forced to provide against their will, and the provided believe they're endowed to the wealth of others. There's no connection between the two. What's worse though, is that government administrators and executors of welfare are largely in it for a paycheck. They largely run and operate a nameless, faceless system. A system of briefly meeting the individuals, having them fill out some paperwork, and putting the information into the computer so they can get their credit cards and have their check come in the mail

Did you SEE what the hell happened in Atlanta the other day with the government housing vouchers? I don't think anybody would possibly begin to think that that was an example of dignity, and making everyone a part of the same society, participating in anything other than their own selfish needs. THOUSANDS of poor African Americans shamelessly going to the government center, broiling in the hot sun, rioting for their friggin benefits at the expense of others. THAT'S social welfare in a nut shell.

In my opinion charity is not a viable alternative to welfare, principally because it allows the wealthy to decide where the money is spent. - Munch

This is a little off. What you meant to say is, "principally because it allows the wealthy to decide where their money is spent."

And to that I say: THE HORROR!

 

[Cutlass]

Welfare only exists in the first place because of how miserable a failure charity is.

 

[Tani Coyote]

Welfare only exists in the first place because of how miserable a failure charity is.

I wouldn't say charity's a failure; it's just a failure when you expect it, with no interference, to hold its own. People as a whole are simply not charitable enough to make it viable, hence why forced charity is necessary.

Now, I'm curious about any numbers any people with the knowledge could run: if we were to turn over most of our welfare budget to private charity(i.e. we tax the money, but transfer it to the charities rather than the government spending it) performing the exact same functions, would it be more efficient?

Keep in mind this is assuming everything remains proportional; if ten billion went to food stamps, for example, and then post-reform, ten billion in collected taxes was transferred to charities that provide food.

 

[Wilks johnson]

For the genuinely disabled(blind,immobile,paralyzed,etc) charity is not enough. My mother was blind and if we had to rely on charity alone, we would have been homeless.

That being said, I wish we lived in a world where charity was enough.

 

[Merkinball]

I wouldn't say charity's a failure; it's just a failure when you expect it, with no interference, to hold its own. - TanaciousFox

This is a completely subjective statement. It's totally contradictory considering that your definition of "what is expected," is different than MY definition of "what is expected," which is different than what Cutlass thinks is "expected."

So with a welfare program the people on the bottom, who will naturally have high expectations of what is expected, considering they're not contributing to squat, get to foist their subjective view onto the rest of us, and expropriate the wealth of others.

Yeah man, that sounds morally upstanding.

 

[Integral]

I'm going to be boring and take the OP seriously.

1) Charity is a normal good - as we get richer, we tend to do more of it, on average.
2) At present income levels, pre-crisis, charitable giving is around $300 billion/year.
3) Total welfare expenditures are about $550bn at the Federal, state, and local level (source: the internets. Take it as a rough figure).
4) Hence you'd need to nearly triple current charitable giving levels to even approximate the current welfare + charitable giving mix.
5) Somehow I don't see that happening and even if it did, there'd be massive shifts in who was covered and to what degree.

 

[SS-18 ICBM]

In your opinion, is charity a viable alternative to welfare?

Yes. Also, markets are 100% efficient.

 

[Tani Coyote]

This is a completely subjective statement. It's totally contradictory considering that your definition of "what is expected," is different than MY definition of "what is expected," which is different than what Cutlass thinks is "expected."

No, not really.

Charity's area of coverage is quite simple judging by domestic and worldwide organisations alike: nutrition, medicine, housing, clothing, and in some cases, education. Pretty much all charities aim to provide adequate levels of these to people.

The exact levels may vary, but I'm pretty much everyone will aim for the bare minimum of each thing if we're using taxpayer dollars. I'm talking ramen three times a day, seven days a week, fifty two weeks a year. Or more or less, something akin to that. Not IHOP for breakfast, some fast food joint for lunch, and Olive Garden for dinner.

Adequate is quite easily defined as "what is necessary for survival."

So with a welfare program the people on the bottom, who will naturally have high expectations of what is expected, considering they're not contributing to squat, get to foist their subjective view onto the rest of us, and expropriate the wealth of others.

For what it's worth, I support making net drains on finance be the first in line for any form of public service. Since the government is more or less your "employer" when they start paying you, you have a responsibility to work for them. Being first in line for being drafted, I think, is a nice deterrent against trying to leech the system.

And I think you're buying too much into welfare recipients a) wanting to live on the dole their whole life and b) wanting to enjoy a lifestyle as great as the wealthy WHILE on the dole. Speaking from the experience of people I've met, this is not the case; pretty much everyone I've known is against taking welfare even when they need it, and if they're on it, they want to get off it ASAP.

Yeah man, that sounds morally upstanding.

As morally upstanding as leaving them to rot with no clothes on their back, no food in their stomachs, no vaccines in their blood, no roof over their heads(besides a cardboard box if they're lucky), and with no education to better themselves, right?

 

[Neonanocyborgasm]

In your opinion, is charity a viable alternative to welfare?


Keep in mind that:

No welfare -> lower taxes -> more money that can be spent.

Charity is an inconsistent means of providing for others, so it's not a viable alternative. Moreover, it's based on the use of guilt to induce it, and guilt is something very few have and even when they have it, is fleeting.

 

[SS-18 ICBM]

For what it's worth, I support making net drains on finance be the first in line for any form of public service. Since the government is more or less your "employer" when they start paying you, you have a responsibility to work for them. Being first in line for being drafted, I think, is a nice deterrent against trying to leech the system.

Eh, most of the people receiving it isn't probably soldier material. Mental illnesses, disability, and just plain being out of shape.

I think the question of how much charity would increase if all welfare was removed is interesting.

 

[Tani Coyote]

Eh, most of the people receiving it isn't probably soldier material. Mental illnesses, disability, and just plain being out of shape.

Well you know, being in the army as a soldier is not the only form of public service... it was just a particular example. And the most intimidating; getting blown up, I'm sure, is the last priority on many of our minds.

A person in a wheelchair, for goodness sakes, still has use of their hands... and computers can do a lot of things.

Of course, the more or less all-around disabled are exempt, due to how their severe disabilities may make them harder to place. Not to mention the greatly disabled have a special case that makes it cruel to force them into service.

I'm more about going after all the fully-healthy, fully-able bodied who are a net financial burden. Not those who are genuinely disadvantaged and can't do anything to improve their situation.

I do not mean to demean the disabled; after all, I'm arguably disabled myself is autism is a disability. There is an explanation of what I meant in the spoiler:

Spoiler :

A person who was paralysed from the neck down most likely wouldn't be able to contribute to any government-required labor(as the use of hands is important in pretty much anything), short of that which required only the brain and head. This isn't meant to be cruel or derisive; a person fully paralysed from the waist down, after all, cannot walk. A person with no arms, most likely cannot type. And with enough disabilities, malformations or damages in the brain, entire functions can become impossible or next to it.

Due to these unfortunate conditions, they would be exempt from any required labor, not only out of pity, but because that if they were drafted for service, they likely wouldn't be able to contribute as much as those without the disability.

After all, if we look at the term "disabled," it's apparent immediately that they are not as proficient as the "abled" in whichever field the disability is in, hence the "dis-." A person with two arms will more than likely be able to type quicker, pick up more objects, and overall multitask much more than someone with only one. The young will similarly outpace the old in almost any physical activity, as the one disability we all get - aging - has not yet affected them.

To give a more reality-based example: would it be offensive if, say, the military denied a person who possesses no legs the position of a foot soldier? (Just a foot soldier; I'm sure said disabled person would still be able to fill other roles) They'd be wheelchair bound and their impeded movement would probably be detrimental to their unit's performance.

Therefore, the military would see them as ineffective for the position and have to deny them, for the sake of efficiency. They may give them the position of someone relaying intelligence or firing missiles from outside the active combat zone(as movement is irrelevant if behind machinery or not moving at all), but to actually send them into the battlefield would be dangerous to the individual as well as their unit.

I hope that clarifies that I did not mean to insult anyone regardless of their disability(this wouldn't make sense, as I'm arguably disabled myself), or level thereof. I merely meant to say that some people would have more capability in a position than others. It applies to education in a field; why can't disabilities similarly factor in?

I think the question of how much charity would increase if all welfare was removed is interesting.

I'll also ask my question again: if we were to instead transfer all the funds set aside for various welfare goals to private charities, would efficiency increase, i.e. would we get more bang for our buck?

 

[SS-18 ICBM]

Well you know, being in the army as a soldier is not the only form of public service... it was just a particular example. And the most intimidating; getting blown up, I'm sure, is the last priority on many of our minds.

A person in a wheelchair, for goodness sakes, still has use of their hands... and computers can do a lot of things.

Of course, the more or less all-around disabled are exempt; they have no practical use.

True, there are a variety of jobs in the army.

I'll also ask my question again: if we were to instead transfer all the funds set aside for various welfare goals to private charities, would efficiency increase, i.e. would we get more bang for our buck?

I'd say yes. Smaller, local charities would have more knowledge of their areas and be able to respond quicker.