| Chairman-Mao said: I am very conservative so I basically think there should be no social programs at all (everything should be privatized) so I would definitely support this idea. Why should my tax money go towards health care for some fucked up addict? Its supposed to go to honest hardworking people as well as infrastructure and other programs. |
The below is not referring to drug users or those able to work and choose not to.
Taking care of the lower-earning or unable-to-work sections of the population directly benefits you. Not paying for them to have a house, food and utilities out of tax means a greater cost when they recieve emergency medical care, or commit crime and take police/justice time and are kept in prison, or because they aren't educated enough to contribute to the economy, or because their children don't have the opportunity to rise out of their parents' social situation.
Private charity is erratic: it can be removed at any moment with no commitment to people or guaranteeing that a particular service will continue long enough to matter. The money given to charity can rise and fall: charities earn the least money during recessions, but that is when the necessary volume of provision should rise! Charity is also free to discriminate between the ethnicites, geographic areas and kinds of need they provide for. People who work for charities have little incentive to get people back to work because their existence depends on poor people needing help - but if the government provides then they have huge incentive to get people into work as it gets tax dollars and reduces expenditure.
Ending government social programs is a short-sighted view, as next tax year you would be a few thousand dollars better off, and then in all subsequent years the costs I mentioned would eliminate almost all of that gain and yet the average level of provision would decrease as giving to charity would be a choice a minority would make (instead of everyone paying) and they wouldn't exactly give more than they would have in tax.
