{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
originally posted in:Secular Sevens
3/27/2014 7:10:55 PM
38
Can charitable giving replace welfare programs?
It's often suggested that welfare programs are broken and should be done away with, and in the absence of welfare programs, charitable giving would take over for what welfare programs used to cover.
Do you think that can happen?
Why or why not?
-
No. Humans are greedy. Every human wants to be better than anyone else and wants to be on top.
-
Not a chance. There are two options. 1) raise the minimum wage and make highly profitable corporations pay their workers correctly 2) Use tax dollars to assist the poor and place the burden on the American tax payer instead of corporations.
-
2 RepliesEdited by Gaara444: 3/28/2014 2:33:03 PMNo, while I completely support charitable giving and understand the fact that there is a lot of good out of it, I also understand that it's not predictable and can't do things welfare programs have. [quote]it's a myth that the occasional deluded libertarian likes to spew because it's a comfortable lie that reassures their ideology, but it would simply not happen. [/quote] It's users like this that make B.net liberals look bad. No one denies the importance of taxes, but if you're still helping your community by donating to charity with an equal or greater amount of money you shouldn't have more money taken out to help those you already helped. That's what Libertarians mean by charitable giving replacing your taxes, only if you give an equal or greater amount than what your tax money would have gone to those programs.
-
25 RepliesNo. I like free healthcare. Thing is, most people are idiots who pretend they care when they don't.
-
Lol. That would fail spectacularly.
-
14 RepliesNo, never, you'd have to be completely detached from reality to think that charitable giving could ever effectively replace welfare programs; it's a myth that the occasional deluded libertarian likes to spew because it's a comfortable lie that reassures their ideology, but it would simply not happen. Even if you could get people to donate a sufficient amount to cover the same money welfare programs provide (and, again, you couldn't), you wouldn't be able to guarantee the stability or the effectiveness of welfare programs designed to have a minimal impact on job seeking while ensuring a minimum standard of living for all people through stable, regular payments and services, and even if you could, the continued success of the program would depend entirely on the whims of a bunch of middle and upper middle class people, there would be no guarantee that the money that's there would be there the next month or year if you still need it. It's just an insane notion, and no reasonable person would think it could possibly be an adequate solution.
-
Impossible, society isnt kind enough
-
I don't know. It's hard to say what would be the best option, since I am neither the recipient of charity nor welfare. Although, the people I know that receive welfare haven't moved up economically, but those who don't have. It's easy to get mad at the welfare recipients you see on television in line to get their free phones, but those represent a very small percentage of those on welfare. I believe that charity could take welfare's place if people donated to charities what they wouldn't be paying to the welfare system via taxes. But that's wishful thinking.
-
I highly doubt that anyone on this website is qualified enough to make a judgement on this.
-
I don't see how one can think that charity alone would put just as much money in the pockets of those who need it. Rather, people who want to replace welfare programs with charity simply don't mind people not being able to make ends meet.
-
10 RepliesEdited by cxkxr: 3/27/2014 7:39:15 PMYes. We'd need to restructure our economy first however. Getting rid of welfare while still in this debt reliant economic system is a bad idea. I'm optimistic that we as a people can be charitable, and provide help to those who need it, without using govt force and theft in a prosperous free market economy. I'm optimistic we can accomplish these things voluntarily without coercing people to do so. I also believe non govt institutions can get the job done far more efficiently than govt ever could. There's no incentive for govt to do a good job. Less taxes would also leave more money in the hands of the people, which in turn leaves you more choice to where your money goes when deciding to donate.
-
1 ReplyYep it should happen. And I would absolutely give to the people who actually need it. Not the copious amounts of people who abuse the system.
-
1 ReplyNo. Instead of welfare/unemployment, we need [i]one[/i] government poverty system. Give the unemployed the option to work for the government (construction, receptionist, etc.) for half the current minimum wage.
-
1 ReplyEdited by M37h3w3: 3/28/2014 5:28:49 PMOh god -blam!- no. Edit: I need to learn to reread source material. Yes. There's likely massive inefficiencies in the welfare program, that should be worked out, that are bloating the costs. I don't think that 90% of the money going into welfare is being wasted. Yes, if people had more disposable income they might donate more. This is also ignoring human nature of the average person to be a greedy, selfish, self-centered, -blam!- twit who only cares about shit in front of him. It's also ridiculous to think that people will start that much money. And then, finally, we have the problem of people donating too much in one area and not donating enough in another. People would likely donate heavily to their churches who will help local problems, but not those over in the inner city who need it more and have more people who need help.
-
I don't think so. I don't think enough people would give
-
Charity could not successfully replace welfare. The only thing that could is the imaginary scenario where all people are guaranteed what is needed for survival. Want for survival isn'it something that should be debated over.
-
Most likely not. Although interestingly, one reason why there has been such a decline in charity is due to the increase in government welfare programs.
-
Can it? Yes. Will it in the near future? No.
-
Maybe if everyone gave a good sized donation, but we know that'll never happen.
-
Government is infamously bad with managing money, but I doubt that citizens would donate enough to compensate.
-
perhaps. charity is always good.
-
Edited by Bistromathics: 3/28/2014 3:10:47 PMThere are some encouraging signs: Americans are already quite generous people with their time and money, and there are studies that show that private charity increases when government assistance decreases. And there are reasons why private charity could be better than federal programs. Charities can tailor themselves to the specific needs of their communities, create a communal atmosphere by building better relationships with the people they help, and be more efficient in how they spend money. Charities are also more transparent to the public eye than large government programs. So I think we would be better off if we were to transition to more charitable giving. Ideally, we should be seeing government welfare covering the extreme low end of the scale, with an emphasis on younger Americans, while charity picks up the slack elsewhere. We would need credible oversight and reporting, but the more transparent and responsive nature of a private company could help there. To those concerned about charities only helping a select few, let's keep in mind that's no different from what government programs can already do; it's not exactly a secret that the government is geared towards "helping" those who don't need it, while turning a blind eye to those who can't contribute enough to the campaign. And it's far easier to keep that system in place when you've got the power of bureaucracy and politics behind you. That said, the country isn't in a position to be able to move away from what little assistance is being provided to the needy. Our policies have consistently been geared towards disenfranchising the poor, solidifying the class structure to discourage social mobility, and removing what little control they may have over their own destinies. There are fundamental changes that need to be made before we can make this viable, and our Libertarian friends will probably be thrilled to know the solutions involve things like government spending.
-
32 RepliesThe problem with charities is that they're not run by the democratic process that the government is. They can be run by one or a small group of people, who can decide to stop giving to certain areas or people for reasons that only they choose. Welfare programs have to go through bureaucratic systems before they can be changed.
-
only if i can wear my sunglasses at my night
-
Do it the Islamic way and pay 2.5 percent of your wealth at the end of every year. This is after you have paid for everything that you need to and have enough money for yourself. If you saved about 10,000 then 2.5% percent of that will go to the poor and feeding the hungry and so on, if every working person in the country did this then I think it could work.
-
Edited by Dave: 3/27/2014 10:36:31 PMwhat's the point of asking this question? there is no one who can honestly answer yes without being completely deluded
