Soleron said:
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.
|
Sorry, but that's just wrong.
Also, it's about what's right, not what's easy. Just because the government thinks taking my effort in the form on money and giving it to someone else makes my life better, it does not make it the right thing to do.
Also, what you stated would happen has proven over time to be wrong. In areas very high welfare vs areas of very low welfare, the areas with high welfare have far more crime.
I have been reading a little on the history of the native New Zealand people. It seems when Europeans came to the south island, they took the land from the people (well, they bought it for a very low sum). This means that as the economy grew in NZ, the native people could not grow with it. It did not turn them into a bunch of thieves and murders.
The US did the same thing with the native indians. It did not make them criminals. This "theory" about why I have to work for someone else is just wrong.
