Social Democracy Robs Individuals of the Opportunity to be Charitable

[DL82]

Would you agree with this statement or not?

I know there are some who suggest that countries like the UK, which provide healthcare and social welfare for the poor are robbing the virtuous of the opportunity to give their time and money to help the poor. It is true that Americans give more to charity than Brits, and it’s true that there are more vocations to religious teaching and nursing orders in Africa than there are in the UK, where those roles are provided by paid state employees. It’s also true that (almost) nobody starves to death in the UK, or dies for lack of an easily affordable medicine, and I’m proud of that.

I don’t buy it. There will always be a need for people to ‘go the extra mile’ to help the less well-off. To suggest that collectively, as a nation, we ought to let people starve to death so that some philanthropist will have the pleasure of knowing that HIS money, and not the government’s money, fed those starving children, just sounds unbearably focussed on the giver.

Does anyone honestly believe this?

 

[rwoehmke]

The kink in the lifeline is that when charity is not generous and efficient enough to meet peoples needs, social democracy becomes necessary and even that is not always a total solution to the problem.

 

[royal_archer]

Government take and give programs definately changes who needs help and charity. There are plenty of programs for the financially poor and those with poor health. The amount of money for these exceeds the need. However there is another group of people who are in need who seem to get no support or charity. Those people who work for a living who have there efforts taken away from them and are demonized by society for mearly using the talents god gave them.

 

[athansor]

It seems to me that we need to ask ourselves…what is the main purpose of charity? Is it to improve the living conditions of people or to fulfill an obligation to our Lord? If it’s the former, and the goal is, say, the elimination of poverty, then whatever means are the most effective should be considered, including government aid. If it is to fulfill an obligation, then the poor are basically placed here so we can show how good we can be. We then wouldn’t want to eliminate poverty or else we wouldn’t be able to show how charitable we could be.

On a local scale, for instance, many well to do folks like being able to help feed the poor and homeless at Thanksgiving. Suppose, though, one Thanksgiving, no one showed up for the free meal because every person in town had enough to feed themselves and their family a holiday meal thanks to a local government program. Would that be a good thing or a bad thing?

 

[Elvenwarrior]

The main argument against Socialized “Charity” is that it just doesn’t work. It uses more money to do less than what the private sector does. That and it’s Socialism which actually is condemned by the Church, at least complete Socialism is. (Like the quotation from JPII that goes something like, “No one can be a Catholic and a true Socialist.”

It’s unjust to take the wealth of the people and give it into the hands of a few politicians to decide how it should be spent “for the good of the masses.” It robs people of their hard earned rewards for labour, and it is also open to heavy abuse because of the “few” who control much. As they say, power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. How much power a small bureaucracy receives should be heavily limited.

 

[St_Francis]

Like everything else in life, from a Catholic point of view there is too much and there is too little.

Some think that taxes are legalised theft, but even Christ said that it is fair for the government to get some taxes because the government does provide certain goods to society. So they go too far in one direction.

Socialised government goes too far in the opposite direction, deifying the government. When one runs out of money, does one think of prayer or going to the local government services office? In the US, there is also a total lack of subsidiarity.

One has to consider what the end of government is, and then consider what the role is. Peter Kreeft (in an MP3 video here) said that the end of government is justice, and that mercy is for families and the Church. However, when the “governments” (at that time consisting of kings and other nobles) found that by converting to Protestantism they could steal the monasteries’ holdings, the social safety net which had been in place disappeared with no replacement.

So… I do not think that outside a Catholic society that charity will suffice, because sufficient grace will be lacking. So I think that the solution is to pray and work for our society to become Catholic once more.

 

[athansor]

The main argument against Socialized “Charity” is that it just doesn’t work. It uses more money to do less than what the private sector does.

The problem is that private charity isn’t getting the job done. If it was, we wouldn’t be discussing public sector programs.

So, we either say that nothing works, and the poor will keep on suffering and dieing, or we look for other answers.

If, for instance, all social programs in the US were dropped, and the money went directly into tax cuts for Americans, would that eliminate poverty in the US? Would it improve the lot of the poorest Americans? Would everyone use the extra money in their paycheck for charitable giving? If we also cut all government sponsored aid to the rest of the world, providing bigger tax cuts, would that have a positive effect on world poverty?

So, it goes back to my earlier question. Private charity isn’t doing the job of eliminating poverty, so we debate and in some cases supplement or replace it with public programs. One complaint is that paying taxes and having that money given to the poor isn’t perceived to have the same spiritual benefits as giving your money directly to the poor voluntarily. In a sense, then, we get a payback for participating in private charity, but not for voting for public charity.

 

[royal_archer]

The problem is that private charity isn’t getting the job done. If it was, we wouldn’t be discussing public sector programs.

So, we either say that nothing works, and the poor will keep on suffering and dieing, or we look for other answers.

Private charity worked well in America before welfare. Anyone who was willing to work could get a piece of the pie, granted there wasn’t as much of the pie to go around but as technology advances we should have less need for charity or welfare but instead we now have a massive government institution dependent on having a large portion of our society in a constant state of dependency. Significantly reducing welfare will just put more people back to work adding to the taxable base and making even more resources available for those who truly need them.

 

[St_Francis]

The problem is that private charity isn’t getting the job done. If it was, we wouldn’t be discussing public sector programs.

Because the government has been doing so much of the job, people do not think it is necessary to give charitably–they have already “given at the office,” so to speak–nor do the charities exist to take up the slack if we were to stop all government aid tomorrow.

The problem is not that private charities are not getting the job done, it’s that the government is not getting the job done but we all think that it is.

So, we either say that nothing works, and the poor will keep on suffering and dieing, or we look for other answers.

Yes, look for other answers. The answer is to be found in the Church. The only way that we can care for the poor is by having a lot more people available to help them, as happened in the Middle Ages.

In our society, the current average number of children is only about 2 per family, and there is no encouragement given to vocations other than marriage. Used to be that many families had quite a few children, and some of those children would become religious (priests, nuns, monks)–they gave themselves up to help the poor.

Moreover, the idea that those who ruled were to serve, to care for, those over whom they had authority supported the monasteries in their efforts.

If, for instance, all social programs in the US were dropped, and the money went directly into tax cuts for Americans, would that eliminate poverty in the US? Would it improve the lot of the poorest Americans? Would everyone use the extra money in their paycheck for charitable giving?

We will never eliminate poverty-on-paper in this country. Here is the way the government determines poverty. Now, they are saying that a family of 5 of with an income over $26,338 is not poor, therefore presumably not eligible for government aid.

But this does not take many things into account. First of all, non-cash benefits such as food stamps and housing aid, and quite possibly MediCaid, which could add up to several thousand dollars per year. However, “[cash] assistance from outside the household” is taken into account–that would be charitable giving.

Secondly, the same numbers are used for the entire nation. If you live in Hawaii, New York City, or other places with very high living expenses, then you are poor at a higher income than if you live in a place where it does not cost as much to live.

Thirdly, if you have paid for your house and live a self-sufficient sort of lifestyle, you might be counted as poor even tho you have no financial problems.

If we also cut all government sponsored aid to the rest of the world, providing bigger tax cuts, would that have a positive effect on world poverty?

Has the foreign aid we have given over the past 40 or 50 years had a positive effect on world poverty?

So, it goes back to my earlier question. Private charity isn’t doing the job of eliminating poverty, so we debate and in some cases supplement or replace it with public programs. One complaint is that paying taxes and having that money given to the poor isn’t perceived to have the same spiritual benefits as giving your money directly to the poor voluntarily. In a sense, then, we get a payback for participating in private charity, but not for voting for public charity.

One thing that few consider is that most people are poor at part of their lives, but at other parts, they are not poor. People move in *and out *of poverty, and not through government programs. An entrepreneur whose business folds may be poor for that year, but if he then goes to work he will be listed in a possibly much higher quintile.

Those who are sort of permanently poor–how much have they been helped by government programs? When we started our War on Poverty in the 1960s, about 20% of the population was poor. Since then, the numbers have fluctuated between 8 and 11% (the difference corelating strongly with our overall economic situation). So, for 45 or so years, we have had about the same amount of people “in poverty,” and since one of the forms of “income counted” is cash from the government, it may well be that the same amount, 20% would be in poverty if it weren’t for the cash benefits they receive, while at the same time others who receive only non-cash benefits would otherwise have an income which would take them out of poverty if it were counted.

Another aspect of poverty is that single-parent families are much more likely to be poor than married families. The lack of stability *encouraged *in our country has led to a lot of the poverty which exists today.

So maybe we are looking at this problem all wrong.

 

[chevalier]

The kink in the lifeline is that when charity is not generous and efficient enough to meet peoples needs, social democracy becomes necessary and even that is not always a total solution to the problem.

Agreed. Plus, a system in which the rich become richer and the poor become poorer is not necessarily based on justice. In my view, that puts a shade on the right of property and the property acquisition must be seen in its proper context when it’s not pay for work (by extension - necessities of life, housing, inheritance etc.) but a result of financial and legal operations which only the system makes possible and when the system is not composed in a just and even-handed way. There is nothing wrong in adjusting the system to counter those developments and to make sure that people can afford the living for themselves and their dependants. However, ideally, I would see it as everyone willing to work being able to find work and to receive fair and honest wage for it, enabling him to support his family - not being on welfare.

 

[St_Francis]

Agreed. Plus, a system in which the rich become richer and the poor become poorer is not necessarily based on justice. In my view, that puts a shade on the right of property and the property acquisition must be seen in its proper context when it’s not pay for work (by extension - necessities of life, housing, inheritance etc.) but a result of financial and legal operations which only the system makes possible and when the system is not composed in a just and even-handed way. There is nothing wrong in adjusting the system to counter those developments and to make sure that people can afford the living for themselves and their dependants. However, ideally, I would see it as everyone willing to work being able to find work and to receive fair and honest wage for it, enabling him to support his family - not being on welfare.

There are some ways that we could change the structure of the system to make it more just; however, no one is talking about those types of changes.

 

[rwoehmke]

Private charity worked well in America before welfare. Anyone who was willing to work could get a piece of the pie, granted there wasn’t as much of the pie to go around but as technology advances we should have less need for charity or welfare but instead we now have a massive government institution dependent on having a large portion of our society in a constant state of dependency. Significantly reducing welfare will just put more people back to work adding to the taxable base and making even more resources available for those who truly need them.

Take a deeper look at history in this country during the depressions of 1852 and 1929. Read the Grapes of Wrath and say the history of Five Points in New York City. Check out the impact of the "Dust Bowl 30"s on the lives of rural America. Check out the soup kitchens run by the religious orders in Detroit and New York during the depression and leading up to WW II. Maybe as Louis’s wife said in France, “Let them eat cake.” Even today there is a great deal of poverty in small town and rural America and on the Western Indian Reservations. It is hidden from many eyes, but believe me when I say its there even with government intervention. The vast majority of the poor are more than willing to work, but there are not enough jobs to go around and even many that dio exist are so poorly paid that many still don’t always know where their next meal is coming from. Charity has never in history been capable of solving these problems.

 

[St_Francis]

Take a deeper look at history in this country during the depressions of 1852 and 1929. Read the Grapes of Wrath and say the history of Five Points in New York City. Check out the impact of the "Dust Bowl 30"s on the lives of rural America. Check out the soup kitchens run by the religious orders in Detroit and New York during the depression and leading up to WW II. Maybe as Louis’s wife said in France, “Let them eat cake.” Even today there is a great deal of poverty in small town and rural America and on the Western Indian Reservations. It is hidden from many eyes, but believe me when I say its there even with government intervention. The vast majority of the poor are more than willing to work, but there are not enough jobs to go around and even many that dio exist are so poorly paid that many still don’t always know where their next meal is coming from.

I agree with what you say here. I do understand that many people seem to think that all would be perfect if… (whatever their solution is).

Charity has never in history been capable of solving these problems.

The thing is, neither has the government.

 

[Elvenwarrior]

I think the view of the private charities doing a pretty good job before the government stepped in is pretty well stated. I’d like to add two more things briefly:

One: The “poverty problem” hasn’t gotten any better since the government stepped in, and they’ve thrown more money at the problem than ever before, arguably it’s gotten a lot worse.

And secondly, Christ said, “The poor you will always have with you.” And realistically…we always will. Earth is made up of fallen human beings, expecting every single person to be out of poverty is unrealistic. It shouldn’t stop us from trying to help people, but the view that if everyone isn’t out of poverty private charities fail is a fallacious idea. The government on the other hand tends to use poverty as a political poker chip, which means keeping people in poverty so they can “promise” them a “better life” is actually in the interest of some politicians, that would never be the case for private charities.

 

[flyingfish]

Seriously, until every single human being on this earth is well off there is plenty opportunity for charity.

Even if everyone in your country is doing well, all you need to do is look at other countries to see how many suffer.

Even if everyone is materially well off, you can still help people out emotionally or educationally.

The problem with relying on charity alone is that people aren’t all that charitable. In the US many people don’t have enough food, many don’t have healthcare. If you expect people to give freely, they will still be without food and healthcare, because let’s face it only the relatively wealthy have enough to give to make a difference, and they don’t give that much of their own free will. If you mandate that the rich pay more taxes, you stand a better chance of providing for the sick and the poor.

 

[Brendan]

The kink in the lifeline is that when charity is not generous and efficient enough to meet peoples needs, social democracy becomes necessary and even that is not always a total solution to the problem.

Mother Theresa once told a sister who was starting a new mission “Don’t worry about money, God has plenty of that”

Mother Angelica started EWTN with exactly the same philosophy. She even refused to create a budget, as she felt that was limiting God’s Providence.

 

[Elvenwarrior]

The American people are the most generous people in the world, this is supported statistically. It’s a simple matter that no matter how generous people are there will always be poor people. Just as in the same way no matter how much people strive for peace there will always be wars. You can decry it and say it’s unfortunate (which it is), but the best humans can do is limit both, not eliminate them. Giving more power to the government to “fix” either is not only naive it’s putting your faith in the government rather than God. The government will never solve those problems, only God can.

 

[royal_archer]

Take a deeper look at history in this country during the depressions of 1852 and 1929. Read the Grapes of Wrath and say the history of Five Points in New York City. Check out the impact of the "Dust Bowl 30"s on the lives of rural America. Check out the soup kitchens run by the religious orders in Detroit and New York during the depression and leading up to WW II. Maybe as Louis’s wife said in France, “Let them eat cake.” Even today there is a great deal of poverty in small town and rural America and on the Western Indian Reservations. It is hidden from many eyes, but believe me when I say its there even with government intervention. The vast majority of the poor are more than willing to work, but there are not enough jobs to go around and even many that dio exist are so poorly paid that many still don’t always know where their next meal is coming from. Charity has never in history been capable of solving these problems.

When governement pays people not to work, the ecconomy suffers causing more people to loose jobs. Our ecconomy is like an engine that is stalling, Welfare is just putting an additional load on that engine by restricting the flow instead of opening the throttle. Charity allows money to go to those who need it with mininal strain on the ecconomy.

 

[royal_archer]

Seriously, until every single human being on this earth is well off there is plenty opportunity for charity.

Even if everyone in your country is doing well, all you need to do is look at other countries to see how many suffer.

Even if everyone is materially well off, you can still help people out emotionally or educationally.

The problem with relying on charity alone is that people aren’t all that charitable. In the US many people don’t have enough food, many don’t have healthcare. If you expect people to give freely, they will still be without food and healthcare, because let’s face it only the relatively wealthy have enough to give to make a difference, and they don’t give that much of their own free will. If you mandate that the rich pay more taxes, you stand a better chance of providing for the sick and the poor.

America is one of the most generous nations on earth. With one third of the population on some form of government assistance, how can anyone who is not able to work, not have enough assistance? Especially when the unemployment rate is only around 10% (not 33%) The answer is that the government programs are not going to the needy, instead they are being used to bribe voters. This corruption is not helpfull and you do not fix corruption by throwing more money at it.

 

[athansor]

. It’s a simple matter that no matter how generous people are there will always be poor people. Just as in the same way no matter how much people strive for peace there will always be wars. You can decry it and say it’s unfortunate (which it is), but the best humans can do is limit both, not eliminate them. .

I’m not sure I agree with this any more. There was a time that I used to feel this way, but now I wonder if maybe it is our God-given responsibility to work to eliminate poverty and war, and I have hope that someday we will. At the same time, I consider my own personal failure to do more to be something I need to repent of and improve.