I think a lot of folks here are missing the big question: charity involves an exchange. When you give to the poor, you get something back. It's subtle: The i

I think a lot of folks here are missing the big question: charity involves an exchange. When you give to the poor, you get something back. It's subtle: The issue is not about eliminating poverty. It's about how to motivate rich people to part with their money. After all, aid to the poor comes from taxes, and the rich pay more taxes. So any kind of welfare has to give the donors of the money something in exchange for their donation. But the poor have nothing to trade for what they receive. Right? Wrong. The poor have their dignity. That's what they trade for donations. Every scheme for wealth distribution is informed by that fact. Rich people give money, and poor people abase themselves in exchange. That's why every welfare scheme always involves humiliation. That's why government housing for the poor looks different from ordinary houses: so the poor will stand out, so they can be shamed. That's why poor people have to endure long lineups at the welfare office: so they can be reminded that they are less worthy of decent consideration. That's why poor people have to endure invasion of their most private aspects of their lives, through visits by social workers: so they can be reminded that they don't deserve privacy. And that's why the rich don't like giving out cash: because cash is anonymous, and enables dignity, equality, and privacy. As long as this implicit bargain (money in exchange for dignity) goes unexamined, the cruelty of the social welfare system will seem mysterious.