What do you think of using money that would be sent to welfare to private charities?
Posted by A_Australian@reddit | Libertarian | View on Reddit | 47 comments
Basically, all the money used by the government (in your country) to fund welfare programs would instead be sent to (private) charities, and any money left unspent would either be kept by the charity or be sent back to the government, to the choice of the charity.
What do you think? Are there any modifications you need before supporting it?
Kedulus@reddit
The money shouldn't be stolen in the first place.
TellThemISaidHi@reddit
OP be like: "But what if, after I forcibly extract wealth from you under threat of violence, I only use the spoils for good stuff? What then?"
Dang. Checkmate. He got us.
jmizzle@reddit
This is the product of being so indoctrinated by government propaganda, that OP completely misses the primary issue - taxes are theft.
HODL_monk@reddit
Normies don't even THINK that taxation is theft, only that its being misallocated, but taxation (and loans and inflation) are ALWAYS misallocated, because the creator of the capital didn't decide where to use it, the misallocation is baked into the system, but the System is all they know, so they continue to want to fix it with some tweaks, even as it collapses around them, from its own inherent illogic.
hea_hea56rt@reddit
Because the idea that any and all forms of taxation is theft is a ridiculously childish way of characterizating taxes.
HODL_monk@reddit
Just because an idea is childish does NOT mean that its wrong. Try giving a 10 year old their allowance, and then take back 1/3rd of it and call it taxes, and chances are, they will immediately find a more appropriate term for it. The reality is, just like the child, you have no real say about how much of your paycheck is snatched away against your will, and there is no consent to this taking. Just because they use Government Guns to take your money from you does not make it right, or just, just harder to stop.
Dry-Tough-3099@reddit
As long as they use it for muh roads, I don't think we can complain...
TheBigNoiseFromXenia@reddit
I like the idea of the money going to private charities. I would just take the government out of the equation entirely. Instead of being forced to fund the government, individuals could voluntarily fund private charities. They could look at expense ratios and choose the best ones, or rely on a rating agency to help them select. Charities could make their case to the people at large as to why their cause was good, and their approach effective.
hea_hea56rt@reddit
If you could see into the future and know for a certainty that this would result in higher numbers of homeless, and higher numbers of deaths caused by extreme poverty, would you still support it?
TheBigNoiseFromXenia@reddit
I do not believe that government is an effective means of reducing poverty, homeless, and death. I believe in freedom and the free market’s ability to lift more people out of poverty, with a better quality of life than any system of government ever devised.
If you could look into the present (Venezuela, Brazil, much of Africa, N Korea, etc), or the past (Mao’s China, USSR, East Germany, France before the revolution, France after the revolution under Robespierre, much of Africa, etc.) and see the death and misery caused by the government, would you still support it?
hea_hea56rt@reddit
Elderly poverty rates since the introduction off ssi are down to 10% from 35%. Food assistance raises millions out of poverty, Medicaid expansion has resulted in lower mortality rates in participating states.
Government assistance cannot end poverty but it can have a positive affect.
HODL_monk@reddit
I will also address the unspoken assumption that the State Approved 15 % (or whatever the level is) of your income MUST go to charities, because we (random political association) pulled that number out of our ass, and we know better than you what the best percentage of your money should be spent on these causes, but as a sop to your freedom-loving ways, we will generously, after seizing that just and true percentage of your money we demand you give to just causes, THEN let you allocate it to the groups WE think are worthy of charity status.
The harsh reality of Libertarianism is that the amount given to charities will likely be lower than it is now, at least at first, because the current system is built on a grand injustice, and its unlikely that the DMV-approved welfare/good deed percentage amount just happens to be the exact same amount we would freely choose to give to our favorite causes, and in fact it cannot be the amount we would choose, BECAUSE we didn't choose it, and the politicians who DID choose it have their own selfish political reasons to do these things, that are wildly different than the reasons free people donate to charities, when they are free to do so without coercion.
motrepooc@reddit
...it's basically criminalized, definitely discouraged, to offer charity directly to needy (ie unhoused people) here in my city...so nah...
Expensive-Issue-3188@reddit
I'm gonna poke you solely for the use of the word 'unhoused'. It's a stupid word.
motrepooc@reddit
...haha, yeah, I get it. Was posting from my workplace where I interact with staff/vendors/public with the full range of views, and "unhoused" doesn't bother me/others so much. Seems broadly inert and somewhat polite. "Persons currently experiencing homelessness" did grind my gears, however. English is a plastic language, though, so if "unhoused" is stupid for you, stick around! The nomenclature changes every year or so...
Expensive-Issue-3188@reddit
That is fair, as far as language changing... As why unhoused has been becoming the used word, someone explained to me it is about reducing stigma. But to me, the stigma doesn't go away with the changing of the word. Unhoused bugs me because it comes off as a well-intentioned but still kinda a virtue signal about stigmas. If my rambling makes sense. Ultimately, it's not a big deal, just minor annoyance to me.
Daytonabitchridda@reddit
He’ll no. Non profits give like 5% of the money collected to the actual people who need it. Wounded warriors I’m looking at you.
Expensive-Issue-3188@reddit
I know this is the case with a lot of charities, like aspca, and absolutely more awareness needs to be raised about these, but not all non-profits are like this. Often, at the local and smaller levels, a lot of private charities really do the work they claim to I used aspca as my bad example, so I'll use a local animal shelter as my good example.
Daytonabitchridda@reddit
Local charities are exclusive if you are part of that group. Good luck getting help from a church.
Expensive-Issue-3188@reddit
I'm sorry if that's your experience... but that experience isn't universal
Cyclonepride@reddit
I support basic welfare for anyone that is physically or intellectually unable to care for themselves, and a small temporary safety net for everyone else. Beyond that, I think all further charity to should be privately collected and managed.
A_Australian@reddit (OP)
YES, THIS!
KayleeSinn@reddit
There isn't much that I hate more than the government but if I had to pick one thing, it would be private charities. They're all a scam and only exist to enrich the CEO and the founders.
Currently is a norm for most charities that only 40% or so of the donations go towards the cause, the rest goes to the CEO and salaries.
I would never support something like that because at least the way charities are set up now, it's voluntary and people choose to fund those scammers but if it were government mandated and they would take money from you by force, it would make things so much worse.
So again, voluntary donations only. CEO take 0 or nothing from donations and volunteer workforce only.
A_Australian@reddit (OP)
Sounds like a good idea! Just ooooooooooooooooooooone, small, question.
How you gonna enfore that CEO's take nothing? REGULATIONS?
HODL_monk@reddit
You don't 'enforce' anything, you VERIFY from their records, if they live up to your chosen ideals. If the CEO has this vision, they will articulate it to their doners, and the donors will have to decide if its a scam or not. I assume in Freedom World, there will be organizations like Consumers Union that will independently verify such claims with their own investigations. Yes, automakers routinely try to scam emissions tests and other regulations, that is why we NEED independent CU that will run their own tests, and give us some real world gas mileage ratings, because these Government Regulators are really not that good at regulating, and usually end up with years of pie on their faces when they later issue huge fines with Government Guns, yet we KNEW EPA gas ratings were pure BS and way too high, both from our own real world use, but also because independent groups took the cars out to real roads, and turned on the car amenities, and then came up with gas mileage ratings that could actually be had, outside of a car lab driving simulator.
A_Australian@reddit (OP)
Hmm, good argument. Thanks for your time, you've convinced me.
Ed_Radley@reddit
Volunteer workforce would be the fastest way to make all of those organizations not only nonexistent but also accomplish nothing. The only reason they're getting anything done right now is the workers who are paid so they will put in 40 hours a week working on the problem they solve. Take that away, those 40 hours go to a different employer and their time commitment drops to maybe 10 hours a week if I'm being generous in my estimation. It would also likely be when most other businesses besides chain retail stores have closed up shop for the day or week, so if they need something from them, they can't get it.
They are inefficient, but they can still generate 42% more impact than the government with the same budget. And rather than fix the salaries for the CEOs I say we shame them into matching their "competitors" by making sure everyone knows how much the guy at the top makes and boycotting them until they're under $1 million. That would still be a far cry from the private sector CEOs making hundreds of millions and would show they care about their mission more than the almighty dollar.
kindofamediumdeal@reddit
That kind of federal government subsidization would make those otherwise private charities no longer private. There'd also need to be a lot of government operational oversight.
My biggest issue with charities is how many of them are religious. Whenever religion's in the mix, you'll see ulterior motives and the risk of ideology-based discrimination.
Expensive-Issue-3188@reddit
It doesn't take religion to corrupt a charity with ideology based discriminating and ulterior motives. That's just a universal human failing
kindofamediumdeal@reddit
You're right. But it seldom helps matters.
Expensive-Issue-3188@reddit
I'm just not a fan of putting a group in a box and labeling them 'the problem'.
kindofamediumdeal@reddit
I can see where you're coming from, but there are times when generalization can serve to arrest deliberation and discourse. Saying "all lives matter," for example, is typically perceived as a shutdown of "black lives matter" because the extended interpretation of the latter statement is "while all lives should matter, some lives have historically been treated as if they don't matter as much as others' lives, and those lives include black lives."
Legitimate_98@reddit
Charities do not work.
We are social animals. We tend to be around people who look like us and talk like us. One of the biggest drivers of charity is religion. What about those who do not believe in religion? You just out of getting charity help?
Charities are a scam. They say they help but they only help the select few. The idea that charity can do anything is wrong.
Expensive-Issue-3188@reddit
Well, it depends on the charity, how well it's run, and what percentage actually goes to the cause. But I'd rather the money come directly from my pocket. And that amount subtracted from what I owe the government, rather than using the government as the middle man. I know of wonderful charities that do a better job than welfare programs that focus on teaching skills to teach people to support themselves.
North-Tea5374@reddit
Religious charity organizations used to be funded by private payers and no one starved.Church(or any Religious structure)is the natural welfare system
Dry-Tough-3099@reddit
No, money should be given back to taxpayers, or used to pay down the debt. Charity should come willingly from the community, not from the threat of violence.
libertarianinus@reddit
Government officials saying how great they are for giving your money to other people is not the definition of charity.
True local charities are the best because they are accountable for the funds. We are able to feed hundreds of people for about 20% of what large NGO do. Small organizations don't have people collecting paychecks.
MillennialSenpai@reddit
As an interum step, this is fine because charities do about 2.5x better than government.
Zealousideal_Owl2388@reddit
There should be no welfare at all
GulfCoastLover@reddit
Robinhood was still a thief.
Government theft is still theft.
Forced charity is not charity.
Tacoshortage@reddit
How about stop taking my money. Then they won't need to send it to charities like the one I would found on day #1 to help sick chipmunks in our new $1billion chipmunk rehab facility that I will conveniently be the founder and president of as well as sit on the board...which meets in Bermuda twice a year for a month.
(charities that take from the govt will be graft)
Mountain_Air1544@reddit
The government is the problem here. Once we no longer can freely choose to donate or what we are donating to, it becomes a taxpayer funded government service.
You are proposing we turn private charities into welfare services
Instead, we should severely cut taxes to the bare minimum. We should then reduce restrictions on private charities and private individuals giving charity. Next, reduce tax requirements and restrictions on small and home businesses, allowing more people to get themselves out of poverty.
GangstaVillian420@reddit
How about we stop taxing so much and let the people donate to the charitable causes they care about.
redeggplant01@reddit
Then there is no point in government being involved since p[eoplle give to charities now without government telling them to
Why would we want to insert the immoral state in this human right of association and thuis violating it
Aniso3d@reddit
No, that's missing the point. The money should be returned to the taxpayers.
brothertuck@reddit
The money should never have been taken
AutoModerator@reddit
New to libertarianism or have questions and want to learn more? Be sure to check out the sub Frequently Asked Questions and the massive /r/libertarian information WIKI from the sidebar, for lots of info and free resources, links, books, videos, and answers to common questions and topics. Want to know if you are a Libertarian? Take the worlds shortest political quiz and find out!
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.