Can private charities realistically replace govt welfare?

[Count of Montesano]

I hear a lot of complaints from my conservative friends about Obama's expansion of government social programs, especially welfare. It seems most conservatives believe that non-profits and charities could do a much better job of caring for America's least fortunate.

Which makes me wonder, could charities realistically replace welfare? I'm not saying that private charities are ineffective at helping people greatly. However, private charities alone have never seemed to be the perfect solution to social problems.

Look at the Middle Ages - the church was heavily involved in charity, and most citizens were expected to tithe. Yet conditions for the poor, the disabled, and the elderly were probably the worst ever in human history. The early industrial age saw plenty of privately run poor houses, orphanages, and charities, yet once again conditions for the poor were terrible.

So, can we really say that modern technology has made it possible for charities to shoulder the burden of social security, welfare, medicaid, etc? Or is this simply a cop-out for people who simply want a smaller tax bill, even if that means a major increase in human suffering?

[danzig]

The problem I think might be scale, there is little denying imo that well one charities are vastly better then government. Red Cross, CARE for example run at 85% effective usage of their money, that % actually going to their programs for people. The question is are there or would their be enough of these good charities (obviously there are bad ones) to replace goverment welfare...that dunno and we'll probably never find out because no one is going to try it. Comparing charities today to middle age ones imo is offbase, completely different eras and much bigger spotline on organizations today then there could ever be back then.

And I dont think its a cop out since conservatives especially religious ones donate more to charity then their counterparts by a 30% average rate. Without going into a pissing contest, the 10 reddest states gave 3.5% of their income to charity vs 1.9% for bluest.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/art...beral_giv.html

So they are definitely putting up and not just talking but would it be enough is the question.

[Vizsla]

The middle ages are not a very good example. During the middle ages the Church was very rich. They kept most of the money and chose not to help the poor. This is one reason why Protestantism arose.

Governments are singularly inefficient at redistributing wealth. Vast sums get wasted on an ever growing bureaucracy.
It seems obvious that the solution to this problem is to cut out government altogether and let super efficient private charities take over. This is not true.
Even assuming it was possible to somehow supply enough money to these charities the enormity and intractability of the problems involved and the vast sums necessitated would require enormous bureaucracies.
You are stuck with vast inefficient and wasteful bureaucracies either way. So there is no solution.

Inequality is inevitable. Perhaps the only truly equal society was the stone age. As technology improves life gets better for those at the bottom but there will always be people at the bottom. There is no justice. Live with it.

[Erik]

Governments are singularly inefficient at redistributing wealth. Vast sums get wasted on an ever growing bureaucracy.

The same is true for charities.

Would be interesting if someone can find hard data on how much % of tax money is wasted on government bureaucracy, and how much % of charity money is wasted on charity bureaucracy.

I would be very surprised if the average charity scored better than the average government.

[danzig]

The same is true for charities.

Would be interesting if someone can find hard data on how much % of tax money is wasted on government bureaucracy, and how much % of charity money is wasted on charity bureaucracy.

I would be very surprised if the average charity scored better than the average government.

No doubt there are many horribly run charities but the best charities are ran better then anything government could achieve.

[Erik]

No doubt there are many horribly run charities but the best charities are ran better then anything government could achieve.

How do you know this?

Can you provide evidence?

[danzig]

How do you know this?

Can you provide evidence?

Google for best run charities or most efficient charities. Places like Salvation army, 86 cents of every dollar they receive goes right back to programs for the needy. Look at Red Cross where just a tad under 90% of money goes directly into its programs. I cant imagine any goverment program where money was that effective in its usage, I mean hell I live in a country that was infamous for spending 1000 for a wrench...while you Europeans might be better it somehow I doubt can match the best run private organizations. Ironically private groups probably have more to answer to then nameless government faces.

Also take a look at http://www.givespot.com/lists/give100.htm#s

Every charity 75% of all money they recieve goes right back into programs for people they cover.

http://www.charitynavigator.org/inde...s&overallrtg=4

another good site to check out a charity

[Aetius]

There is no justice. Live with it.

Seriously.

[Armfelt]

Look at the Middle Ages - the church was heavily involved in charity, and most citizens were expected to tithe. Yet conditions for the poor, the disabled, and the elderly were probably the worst ever in human history. The early industrial age saw plenty of privately run poor houses, orphanages, and charities, yet once again conditions for the poor were terrible.

Poor people was just part of life in the middle-ages. It was a thing and as said people were expected to help beggars etc., everyone had his place and poor people weren't looked down upon (this changed in the 16th century). It wasn't seen as a problem because humans do not see problems unless they think they have the means to end the problem, which in this case was poverty as a phenomena.

I am not saying that private charities should replace welfare though.

[cristophe el perno]

Short answer, no.
Historically, charity has never been more than a token gesture to appease the consciences of the rich. It's not like modern society has abolished greed, so I would think that charity now would be jsut as inadequate as charity was before the welfare state was introduced.

[The Devil's Sergeant]

What social problems have all the welfare spending cured?

None worth mentioning. In the USA alone trillions have been transferred to the poor, and the poor are still poor. The path out of poverty is industriousness and thrift.

[sephodwyrm]

Private enterprises don't have the political space or capital to start massive infrastructure projects that actually lift people up from poverty. Giving them welfare is just giving them enough so that they won't starve.

[Erik]

I think social welfare shouldn't be seen as a charity at all, but as an insurance policy.
I pay my taxes today, so that if I loose my job tomorrow I'm entitled to compensation.

The only odd thing here is that this "insurance policy" is mandatory.
But then, so is car insurance and health insurance (in my country, at least).

[Viking Prince]

False question. The question ought to be --- Should government squeeze out private charity by expanding government social safety nets?

I suggest a rephrasing of the question, because this is what is happening. Nobody in the mainstream conservative movement (that I am aware of) is seriously suggesting that government not participate as it has in social safety nets.

[Viking Prince]

@Erik -- let's turn the question around. What basis is there to believe that government should run anything more efficiently than a charity. The charity consists mainly of people who believe in the cause -- and many are unpaid or low paid volunteers. The government employees are well paid by any reasonable definition and many are government employees due to pay, job security, and political activism. So why even assume that the government will do the task better?

[Erik]

@Erik -- let's turn the question around. What basis is there to believe that government should run anything more efficiently than a charity. The charity consists mainly of people who believe in the cause -- and many are unpaid or low paid volunteers. The government employees are well paid by any reasonable definition and many are government employees due to pay, job security, and political activism. So why even assume that the government will do the task better?

Several reasons:
- Governments are constantly being checked by opposition parties who want to prove they can do a better job.
- Because governments employ professionals they are likely to get better skilled people for the jobs at hand than charities who rely on "random" volunteers.
- Governments don't have to spend much on advertisement.

But most importantly:
-There is only one government, so only one bureaucracy vs. dozens of small charities that are all trying to re-invent the wheel.

Christ you know even when we basically agree on a topic you gotta constantly argue it. It is my opinion based on the charity info and seeing what my government does...fine I might be wrong but based on what I know about my own government and what Ive seen for some of the biggest charities I dont think I am. Ive provided info to support what I think is the case including that charities generally are more accountable, 3rd party evaluations of charities etc and you have offered nothing in return. I swear you like arguing simply for the sake of arguing, I really dont know why I bother replying to you on anything anymore. Such a waste of time.

That's because I'm not arguing your points, I'm just saying you shouldn't bring your GUESSES as FACTS.

[Viking Prince]

Several reasons:
- Governments are constantly being checked by opposition parties who want to prove they can do a better job.
- Because governments employ professionals they are likely to get better skilled people for the jobs at hand than charities who rely on "random" volunteers.
- Governments don't have to spend much on advertisement.

But most importantly:
-There is only one government, so only one bureaucracy vs. dozens of small charities that are all trying to re-invent the wheel.



That's because I'm not arguing your points, I'm just saying you shouldn't bring your GUESSES as FACTS.

Your post has insulted all people who volunteer.

To suppose government is the solution due to monopoly status is also a bit unusual. I thought that competition tended to give better results than monopoly. I thought people with an interest would perform better than people assigned to do a task.

And what is this "random" volunteer BS? Volunteers are anything but random. The government bureaucrat is the random factor here.

You just turned everything upside down to suit your argument. Bahhh!!!

[Avram]

Several reasons:
- Governments are constantly being checked by opposition parties who want to prove they can do a better job.

Are you aware of the theories of competition?

The same way a government doing a bad job in welfare might be opposed by a government who claims they can do better, one charity can be opposed by another who claims they do better.

Donations aren't just gonna go to any old charity even if they are embezzling half the funds and doing a horrible job altogether. Rather donations will go to the charity that can convince the consumer (usually by cold hard proof) that they are solving the problem at hand.

The difference between private competition and two or more opposing governments here is speed and efficiency.

While welfare only provides part of government's functions, it accounts for ALL a private charity does. Thus the government can be elected despite providing welfare poorly, based on other merits. However a private charity is judged by this function and this function alone. Thus it must always keep itself on its toes lest it loses donations almost instantaneously to a competitor.

Furthermore once the government gets in power it can do as bad a job as it wants till next election time rolls around. The vote of the ballot is slow and periodic while the vote of the dollar is instantaneous and can happen as soon as any slip-up occurs.

In universal suffarage democracy everyone's vote is treated with the same weight. However under private competition, those prepared to sacrifice more (and therefore those who care more) have more of a say in which system of welfare (i.e which private charity) will come out on top.

So in conclusion: whereas a government who only promises good welfare, or, has even been known to provide bad welfare in the past, can get elected based on other merits and then do as poor of a job as it wants for four years (which seems to be the standard these days) a private charity must always battle and struggle for the donations of its customers, it must always strive to do the best job possible for those who need help and any slip ups are instantaneously punished with donations to a better charity. Thus the system moves quickly and efficiently towards economic perfection, where the most people are satisfied for the lowest possible cost.

- Because governments employ professionals they are likely to get better skilled people for the jobs at hand than charities who rely on "random" volunteers.

The theory of competition applies as much to employees as it does to all round general service.

If a charity that employs higher skilled labor does better than the one that employs lower skill labor, then it will succeed. However the opposite might be true, which would just mean that high skilled labor was overextending and inefficient.

In the end it will be the vote of the donators that determines which employees are better which aren't. Unlike a government where it is the elected board (who might have been elected cause I dunno they promised free pancakes to everyone or whatever other marxist garbage people like obama spew out these days) who arbitrarily decides which employees are better suited for the job, and has no way to calculate if this is efficient or not.

- Governments don't have to spend much on advertisement.

The Obama campaign went well into the billions

-There is only one government, so only one bureaucracy vs. dozens of small charities that are all trying to re-invent the wheel.

I have already explained the benefits of competition and how "re-inventing the wheel" means the wheel is less squeaky more efficent and all round better for everyone.

I will now move on to my most important point.

The government has an unlimited pool of funds from which to produce from. It can take money out of productive sectors of the economy provided by private enterprise (through taxation) and put them to ill use. It has no incentive (i.e you will just stop existing if you fail) to be efficient. Only in public enterprise are systems which perform badly given more money. If healthcare doesn't work the solution is to punish everyone (especially the rich aka the best producers), tax them more and throw more money into this failed system that just doesn't work.

In private enterprise this money goes to an alternative system that does the job well.

There is no real check on spending (i.e when costs outweigh revenue, in this case from donations) to determine if you're being inefficient, and therefore no way for public enterprise to ever be as efficient, or anywhere near as good for the welfare of everyone, as private enterprise continues to be and must continue to be in the future.

As for the argument on scale of private charities, I only need ask you to take a look at the red cross.

[Giuliano Taverna]

What's wrong with financial inequality? Everyone should not be equal, everyone should have as much or as little as they are capable of producing.

If that means 10 people have 90% of everything than if they are that much more capable than everyone else, they should get to keep what is theirs.

There is no redistribution of wealth, there is only government sanctioned looting. If people want to live in Lenin's Russia then that's their business. But I refuse to!

[C-Rob]

they could in fat times, but in recession times... peoples' pockets don't empty as easily into the needy's hands.