4 ms·
>And yes, before you ask, I would be delighted to shoulder a dramatically increased tax burden if I knew it meant that people I care about (and complete strange
by logicchains 12y ago
>And yes, before you ask, I would be delighted to shoulder a dramatically increased tax burden if I knew it meant that people I care about (and complete strangers) who are physically and mentally ill would no longer have to live and die at the whim of a suspicious and unforgiving bureaucracy.
Do you give much money to charity? If we assume many people are like you, and desire to help those who are sick, why aren't voluntary charities sufficient; why does the government have to take money from anyone regardless of whether or not they want to give it?
- PhasmaFelis 12y agoFor one thing, the government is in a better position than the average charitable citizen to determine how best to distribute money. Individuals mean well, but we only see a tiny part of the national situation, and we're prone to emotional effects. I'm not saying the government we have does a good job of this, but, for example, in the US we have disability programs that mean that disabled people with no other means of support often, eventually, get enough money to at least help them get by. If we instead relied on individual charity to handle disability, you'd have one sad photogenic white girl getting millions while thousands of equally-disabled people got nothing and starved to death.