5 ms·
Similarly why a robust welfare state is preferable to charity. Charitable giving is free to discriminate and there's no mechanism to try and move it towards tho
by phil248 7y ago
Similarly why a robust welfare state is preferable to charity. Charitable giving is free to discriminate and there's no mechanism to try and move it towards those who most need it.
- jedmeyers 7y agoDo you think welfare state actually distributes funds to whoever needs them? They are giving funds away to everyone who can check x boxes on a form, no one in the government ever verifies if the person actually needs the money, like a charity would do.
- ses1984 7y agoLike some charities would do. If you give charity to someone on gofundme, what charity ever verifies if the person actually needs the money?
- jedmeyers 7y agoYou verify it when you select where to give your money. Otherwise they are forcefully taken from you and distributed, and the most you can say about it is filling a ballot every two years.
- pjc50 7y agoI find it hard to see how a charity would be able to see into people's lives enough to make that decision, compared to the state which can and does prosecute if you lie on the form.
- slang800 7y ago> can and does prosecute if you lie on the form The government has no incentive to reduce or even investigate this type of fraud. Enforcement is selective at best.
- standardUser 7y agoI implied there are mechanisms in a welfare state that can be used to try to move resources to where they are needed most. There are no mechanisms whatsoever to force Bob the billionaire to do a god damn thing with his own money, other than to give the billionaire more tax breaks. I also used to work in certification for government benefits, and I can assure you there are, in many cases, safeguards and verification.