3 ms·

I'm a left leaning centrist, and subject to the highest tax brackets. I could, I guess, vote for a party who would give me tax cuts. Then I'd have more money.

I'm a left leaning centrist, and subject to the highest tax brackets. I could, I guess, vote for a party who would give me tax cuts. Then I'd have more money. But I believe that healthcare that is accessible, that support for people struggling with poverty, and decent education, is best provided coherently, at scale, by an organisation that works at a societal scale, like, say, a government. When I was young, my society, funded by people paying taxes, gave me access to a decent education (although I squandered that), access to healthcare, and kept me from starving or becoming homeless when I was poor. So I am very happy to pay higher taxes, as it funds effective solutions. Am I less compassionate because I don't give money to a church, or coach a sports team? This publication feels like an opportunity for people who routinely tithe then vote against helping out others in their society to pat themselves on their back in complete denial of how poorly the USA does when it comes to supporting (or perhaps I should say, choosing to support) the people on the lower rungs of the American Dream. Could government be more effective? Yes. Definitely. Is it more effective than a hodge podge of random charities? Yes, and obviously so.

possiblydrunk 5y ago
>But I believe that healthcare that is accessible, that support for people struggling with poverty, and decent education, is best provided coherently, at scale, by an organisation that works at a societal scale, like, say, a government. Your private beliefs aside, this isn't currently borne out in the US. The idea is attractive and sounds plausible, but now rarely works at scale without enormous inefficiency. Provide objective examples of your success stories, please. Private charity's weakness is that it is non-uniform. Government charity's weakness is inefficiency. The former likely gives more but to fewer people. The latter should reach more people, but likely gives less to each. Which works best to get the most resources to those in need is debateable.
- EdwardDiego 5y ago
  > Your private beliefs aside, this isn't currently borne out in the US. The USA isn't trying very hard.
  - possiblydrunk 5y ago
    Well, that could be said about numerous failed ideas. But it doesn't change the reality on the ground.

possiblydrunk 5y ago

>But I believe that healthcare that is accessible, that support for people struggling with poverty, and decent education, is best provided coherently, at scale, by an organisation that works at a societal scale, like, say, a government. Your private beliefs aside, this isn't currently borne out in the US. The idea is attractive and sounds plausible, but now rarely works at scale without enormous inefficiency. Provide objective examples of your success stories, please. Private charity's weakness is that it is non-uniform. Government charity's weakness is inefficiency. The former likely gives more but to fewer people. The latter should reach more people, but likely gives less to each. Which works best to get the most resources to those in need is debateable.

EdwardDiego 5y ago
> Your private beliefs aside, this isn't currently borne out in the US. The USA isn't trying very hard.
- possiblydrunk 5y ago
  Well, that could be said about numerous failed ideas. But it doesn't change the reality on the ground.