Discussion»Questions»Random Knowledge» If there was no wellfare system, would personal charity/ giving increase enough to support the helpless/ vulnerable?
Not at all. In my opinion, charity is primarily a conservative agenda used to justify rich people not paying a higher tax rate. There has never been and will never be enough charity to sustain a helpless population, who are suppressed by their inherent lack of opportunity and inability to get up on their own feet. The top 1% knows that the top 1% won't willingly donate their money to the poor and, even if they did donate, what's the difference between donation and paying it in taxes other than that you feel good about yourself for giving to charity? This is what government intervention is for ... To prevent an obnoxiously wealthy oligarchy from controlling the poor masses through manipulation.
I agree with you more or less, but I was having a debate with someone the other day and they swore up and down they would have donated more than they paid in taxes, if the taxes had not been taken. I personally think that's total BS- if you would have given, you still would have given the difference... a person doesn't magically decide to give just because they have more. They're either a giver or they're not.
The person tried to claim that the existing policies/ welfare were designed to intentionally keep people down.
I haven't found any stats or models that suggest anything either way, but I'd sure like to... either way.
maybe, im in that situation where ive been out of work a lot and cant get welfare money cause im single but yet noone wants to hire me or if they do they wont keep me, i can get foodstamps and medicaid but not cash, I have a friend that will literally help me with whatever i need cause of this. I ended up going to school just so i can live on financial aid, the problem is im not doing good in school so im not sure how long i can stay there, i think i might have some learning disabilities
Charitable contributions may very well increase, but that does not necessarily equate to those contributions - regardless of how large, actually helping those in need with their needs. You might have isolated pockets where the poor would be adequately cared for, but you would also have large swaths where they would not be. Currently welfare, despite differences among states and despite a certain percentage of people falling through the cracks, is distributed to reach people nationwide.
When people give directly, they can choose to designate those funds for a particular purpose, limit who may benefit, or attach any strings they wish to those accepting help. Building a library is a wonderful charitable contribution to society, for example...it doesn't feed, clothe, shelter or provide medical treatment for the poor or disabled however.
I am a proponent of private charity, of people helping others directly, of local charities where more of what is collected is used to benefit those it helps, of looking out for family, friends and neighbors because it is the right thing to do. Ideally, that would be enough to take care of the less fortunate.
We don't live in an ideal world, though, and history has shown that some people will take care of others, and some won't. Just as when charity or welfare is provided, some will appreciate it, and others will take advantage of it. If all welfare programs were discontinued, even if we eventually started looking out for each other, it wouldn't happen overnight.
That was George H. W. Bush's "Thousand Points of Light" strategy. No, it didn't work. The poor are poorer and the rich are richer.
This post was edited by CallMeIshmael at March 28, 2017 8:52 PM MDT
Standard Alien 