Private Welfare vs. Redistribution

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
1

There seems to be the idea that the private sector could never, ever match the level of redistribution through taxes and therefore people would starve in the streets if such programs discontinued.

That is very likely not true for several reasons.

Let us look at 10$, redistributed by the government. All in all as little as 30% reaches those who were intended to be helped with the program.

That is not all, however.

The 10$ taxed could have been 12, or 13 or even 15$ were there no progressive taxation, because progressive taxes work as a disincentive whereas charity works as an incentive.

Less technically, if people are heavily taxed they work less because they perceive it as a punishment. When they give to charity however, they feel all warm and fuzzy and are proud of themselves, so they might even work more to be able to give!

The other part we need to look at is the 30% that reaches those who are the recipients of those programs. One simply cannot use the money figures , what matters is utility. As an example, if the government buys an Eskimo a refrigerator for 300$, the Eskimo has not exactly gained 300$ in utility, in fact the refrigerator is a nuisance. Very often that money goes to programs the poor do not really want or need, so all of it is simply a make work program for the politically well connected middle class.

In conclusion, there is no reason to believe that private charities would waste as much money as government programs, so private contributions would be a significantly smaller percentage of a significantly larger pie.

2

Worse still, government redistribution turns charities into inefficient monoliths of bureaucracy. Now they have to hire grant writers, lawyers and lobbyists to figure out how best to loot the public.

And because of the efficiency with which the government can carry out its looting there is little incentive from “private” charity to reverse the trend and actually target private donors.

We might as call democracy a form of government for the lobbyists, by the lobbyists.

3

Taxes should support common infrastructure such as roads, police forces, and basic education.

Outside of that, handle your own shit. If you can’t hack it, fuck you.

4

I don’t recall people dying in the streets before the '60s. I wonder how the poor managed?

5

[quote]FormerlyTexasGuy wrote:
Taxes should support common infrastructure such as roads, police forces, and basic education.

Outside of that, handle your own shit. If you can’t hack it, fuck you. [/quote]

x2

let the lazy and addicted die

6

Interesting read regarding the stimulus vs. tax etc.

http://maggiesfarm.anotherdotcom.com/archives/10486-Stimulus-Hooey.html

From guest poster Bruce Kesler -

I heard Rush Limbaugh on radio say that the stimulus bill being worked on in Washington should be split in proportion of the popular vote percentages for Obama and McCain between Democrat ideas of ?infrastructure? and Republican ideas of ?tax cuts.?

One is never sure whether Rush is joking. Regardless, I gagged. (Ed note: It was irony, BK)

Indeed, I?m gagging at the whole stimulus discussions. Whether spending or tax cuts. The concept of the stimulus bill is that by putting more money in some people?s pockets, demand for goods and services will be increased, which will stimulate business spending. There are several slips between cup and lip in this.

First, much of the demand we were accustomed to was speculation, and much else was reckless to prudent family budgets. Much home and auto buying, as well as much other consumer spending, was by those who couldn?t afford the purchases. This should not be restimulated. Those who can afford purchases will make purchases.

Second, relatively few of those who can afford purchases are rejected for credit. Loosening credit will mostly reallow those who cannot afford purchases to resume.

Third, though the stimulus bill is not based on currently increasing most taxes, unless we want to see a future major inflation tax on everyone due to this huge deficit spending we will see huge future tax increases on most to pay for the otherwise unsustainable deficit spending.

In short, the very idea of the stimulus bill is inane.

There may be grounds for some very, very limited and targeted, proven boosts to some people or businesses in real dire need, provided it does not become ongoing or contrary to their getting their affairs and operations in effective order.

The rest is sheer hooey. The politicians who support it are just trying to buy votes and contributions from their constituencies, at the expense of everyone else and of reason.

7

[quote]Standard Donkey wrote:
FormerlyTexasGuy wrote:

Outside of that, handle your own shit. If you can’t hack it, fuck you.

x2

let the lazy and addicted die[/quote]

Those must be the fabled “Christian principles” America was supposedly founded upon.

8

^American was not founded on any set principles besides the notion of liberty.

The government was supposed to be set up to protect individual liberty which allows the greatest prosperity to happen which in turn provides individuals with the best opportunity to make charitable donations.

Without freedom there can be no charity. We can have all the Christianity in the world but it does not provide the necessary stimulus that allows charity to happen.

9

[quote]pookie wrote:
Standard Donkey wrote:
FormerlyTexasGuy wrote:

Outside of that, handle your own shit. If you can’t hack it, fuck you.

x2

let the lazy and addicted die

Those must be the fabled “Christian principles” America was supposedly founded upon.
[/quote]

As lift said, America was not formed on Christianity. In fact it was to escape religiously dominated kingdoms ultimately directed by the pope and catholic institution.

If you research the founding fathers, you will find most of them are deists, gnostic or not religious at all.

Under God, In God we Trust etc etc all came later.

Christianity is a moot point here.

10

[quote]FormerlyTexasGuy wrote:
pookie wrote:
Standard Donkey wrote:
FormerlyTexasGuy wrote:

Outside of that, handle your own shit. If you can’t hack it, fuck you.

x2

let the lazy and addicted die

Those must be the fabled “Christian principles” America was supposedly founded upon.

As lift said, America was not formed on Christianity. In fact it was to escape religiously dominated kingdoms ultimately directed by the pope and catholic institution.

If you research the founding fathers, you will find most of them are deists, gnostic or not religious at all.

Under God, In God we Trust etc etc all came later.

Christianity is a moot point here. [/quote]

No it wasn’t. It was to escape the Church of England that was the genesis of the movement. They came to America to have religious freedom. Religious freedom is at the nucleus of the founding of America and they is why it is so vehemently protected by the constitution.

11

^I think religious freedom is entailed by the idea of liberty.