4 ms·

> The utility of government exists to cater for the citizens, regardless of who they are. This is more or less my point. Taxes used for food/housing of individ

> The utility of government exists to cater for the citizens, regardless of who they are. This is more or less my point. Taxes used for food/housing of individuals is akin to wealth redistribution. It is not money going to a public good/service but rather to individuals via an involuntary transaction. While it may benefit the party receiving the redistributed wealth, it does not necessarily benefit the giving party (though it may). Therefore the government is not catering to all citizens. In fact, it is actively harming some. While the Salvation Army may be considered a great charity by many, it seems to fall short on transparency so you are correct in that I would recommend focusing elsewhere for giving. Edit: it also leads to moral hazard in a variety of ways such as corporate subsidiaries for low wage positions because they know workers will qualify for government handouts and therefore the workers demand lower wages.

shakna 5y ago
> it also leads to moral hazard in a variety of ways such as corporate subsidiaries for low wage positions because they know workers will qualify for government handouts and therefore the workers demand lower wages. Easily overcome by simply having reasonable minimum wage laws. Whereby corporations are required to provide a living wage. > Therefore the government is not catering to all citizens. In fact, it is actively harming some. Failing to provide support for citizens _does_ actively harm citizens. The choice you're proposing is between "maybe harm" and "we know it harms". They're not equivalent. > I would recommend focusing elsewhere for giving. For the third and final time - Where?
- hellojesus 5y ago
  > Easily overcome by simply having reasonable minimum wage laws. Whereby corporations are required to provide a living wage. You are proposing fixing a negative externality caused by government policy with more government policy, which also happens to actively harm citizens. Minimum wage laws add barriers to entry into the labor market for citizens. It ensures that laborers whom cannot provide utility at or in excess of the minimum wage cannot get a job in the first place. It also actively prohibits private citizens from making voluntary, private transactions that pose no harm to third parties. > Failing to provide support for citizens _does_ actively harm citizens. The choice you're proposing is between "maybe harm" and "we know it harms". They're not equivalent. My point was that there was harm induced, definitively, upon Peter when you rob him to pay Paul. The only "maybe" about it was in the event that Peter wanted to give Paul the money anyway. But we know that is a specific case and not general. > For the third and final time - Where? I don't have a good charity to recommend. I do most of my giving through the local church and it's partner organizations. They release spending profiles, and I can see the difference my dollars make in the local ccommunity. It appears you are correct about SA, which I didn't know https://www.businesspundit.com/10-infuriatingly-greedy-charities/ https://www.businesspundit.com/10-infuriatingly-greedy-chari...

shakna 5y ago

> it also leads to moral hazard in a variety of ways such as corporate subsidiaries for low wage positions because they know workers will qualify for government handouts and therefore the workers demand lower wages. Easily overcome by simply having reasonable minimum wage laws. Whereby corporations are required to provide a living wage. > Therefore the government is not catering to all citizens. In fact, it is actively harming some. Failing to provide support for citizens _does_ actively harm citizens. The choice you're proposing is between "maybe harm" and "we know it harms". They're not equivalent. > I would recommend focusing elsewhere for giving. For the third and final time - Where?

hellojesus 5y ago
> Easily overcome by simply having reasonable minimum wage laws. Whereby corporations are required to provide a living wage. You are proposing fixing a negative externality caused by government policy with more government policy, which also happens to actively harm citizens. Minimum wage laws add barriers to entry into the labor market for citizens. It ensures that laborers whom cannot provide utility at or in excess of the minimum wage cannot get a job in the first place. It also actively prohibits private citizens from making voluntary, private transactions that pose no harm to third parties. > Failing to provide support for citizens _does_ actively harm citizens. The choice you're proposing is between "maybe harm" and "we know it harms". They're not equivalent. My point was that there was harm induced, definitively, upon Peter when you rob him to pay Paul. The only "maybe" about it was in the event that Peter wanted to give Paul the money anyway. But we know that is a specific case and not general. > For the third and final time - Where? I don't have a good charity to recommend. I do most of my giving through the local church and it's partner organizations. They release spending profiles, and I can see the difference my dollars make in the local ccommunity. It appears you are correct about SA, which I didn't know https://www.businesspundit.com/10-infuriatingly-greedy-charities/ https://www.businesspundit.com/10-infuriatingly-greedy-chari...