Quote:
|
Originally Posted by SzczerbiakManiac
If someone doesn't want the government to help poor people, it does not automatically mean that person doesn't want to pay to help poor people. There are far better ways to assist the poor.
It should not be the government's job to provide charity (including the ones you mentioned) Charity works best when run by private organisations who actually have to answer to those who donate to them. And besides, is it really "charity" when you're forced to donate? If Mr. Lewis comes to my door and threatens to kidnap me and throw me in his dungeon until I donate to Jerry's Kids, am I really making a charitable donation? I don't think so.
True, the worst example of it. It's bloated full of waste because it doesn't have to answer to anyone and is too big to manage effectively.
|
Private charitable organizations are big business, and they vary greatly in how much actually goes to the object of charity as opposed to the well paid administrators. The executive directors of these groups do not answer to the man on the street; they answer to 1) their board members, who usually are not averse to seeing people make a nice living and throw nice parties and 2) the IRS, who eventually will yank a charity's tax-exempt status and then, bye-bye charity.
You can't deny that tax policy shapes people's willingness to donate to charities (or buy homes). Repeal of the estate tax has greatly affected charitable giving. The increasing reach of the alternative minimum tax in states like California beyond the truly rich will do so as well.
I don't think all the charities in the countries put together could manage the welfare and food stamp programs as effectively as the government does, or feed and shelter the millions that they would have to if these programs were eliminated.
I assume you don't mean the part about not wanting to pay for public schools or road upkeep.