You don't actually know such a thing, especially considering how much the economy would improve without government control.
You don't actually know the economy would improve without government control. Except if you mean improve like it did in 2008, where it did improve for a select bunch of people, and crashed for most.
And do you actually think that when people complain they have to pay $100 in taxes, they would dish out the same amount to charity when those taxes are gone? And when charity has to take over from the government to take care of those who are in need, it will become just as bloated and bureacratic as the government. The enourmous downside is that in time of crisis, people will donate less. In time of crisis people need donations harder than ever. So you created a situation where there will be less funds available from an already greatly diminished amount when they are needed most.
Frankly put: stating: charity will handle it, and justifying it with: because the economy will improve, really isn't supporting anything at all for 2 reasons. 1. You will first need to have an argument why the economy will improve, and 2. the amount donated to charity will be highly instable. I'd rather have a more secure safety-net for those in need than: if you want your kids to eat, cross your fingers there will be some donations mate.
Finally, calling it control is dishonest, because it isn't control by a long shot. Call it regulation. If there's anything that 2008 also showed us, it's that the government isn't in control at all. But the corporations who do what they are supposed to do: maximize their profits. Which is fine, it's expected.
