S
St_Francis
Guest
This is a very simplistic way of putting it. If the government takes the philantropist’'s money in taxes in order to give it to the needy, several things occur. First, the government gives according to some formula which considers many factors other than which nations are actually in need, which seems to be the last factor they consider.
Secondly, there are so many costs associated with government action that of the philanthropist’s tax dollar used “to help,” only a very small percentage gets sent out to help poor people.
Thirdly, of those dollars or food sent out, only a miniscule amount achieves its objective of actually helping a poor person, due to the receiving government’s associated costs, some of which are surprisingly heavy.
But looking at what happens when an independent philanthropist gives money, one can see that usually he would consider how his money could do the most good. Thus he would consider where the need is greatest, and the best vehicle for getting the money or goods to the intended recipient–a real poor person.
I suddenly realised something. It is not that social democracy takes away the *opportunity *of charity; it is that 1. it acts as if all that those in need need is money; and 2. by giving them money, it robs us of the understanding that there is still work to be done.
Americans (and Australians!) are far and away the most generous nations on earth, so it is not as if we Americans think that since we “gave at the office” that we are off the hook. If people are going to complain about people not giving to charity, complain about the Europeans, whose biggest donors give much less than half of what Americans give.