# Can government social programs be replaced with a charitable mandate? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 28, 2013, 9:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-government-social-programs-be-replaced-with-a-charitable-mandate/656949 "2013-04-28T21:02:43Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![msmith537](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d9b06d/32.png) [@msmith537](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/msmith537)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2013, 10:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-government-social-programs-be-replaced-with-a-charitable-mandate/656949/21 "2013-04-28T22:34:32Z")
Never mind the fact it represents the worst kind of socialist wealth redistribution. ---
**Author:** ![Joshuagenes](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/8e7dd6/32.png) [@Joshuagenes](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Joshuagenes)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2013, 10:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-government-social-programs-be-replaced-with-a-charitable-mandate/656949/22 "2013-04-28T22:40:37Z")
> [@DocCathode](#): > > Define, in exacting and precise terms who and what qualifies to receive these funds. If something is a trade it is not a gift and therefore not giving. I would like to keep the matter broad and much in the discretion of the giver so that it will apply to every noble cause. If congress finds some abuses in the future they can address them at that time. Congress remains the exception handler for issues that may arise with this law. ---
**Author:** ![Joshuagenes](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/8e7dd6/32.png) [@Joshuagenes](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Joshuagenes)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2013, 10:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-government-social-programs-be-replaced-with-a-charitable-mandate/656949/23 "2013-04-28T22:46:40Z")
> [@monstro](#): > > Horrible idea. > > People will turn over their “tax” to fund charities they sympathize with. So expect lots of donations to flow to the Cute Puppies for Cute Children campaign, but little to flow to counseling services for Runaway Teens with Potty Mouths and Body Piercings. Or supportive transitional housing for ex-felons. These programs get some government support. Take that away and they’ve got nothing. > > Charities aren’t required to help any and everyone. They don’t have to help the dirty atheist that knocks on their door. I don’t want my tax dollars supporting those kinds of places. I know they do now, but at least the government provides a secular alternative. I hold you to be a responsible person and you can give your tax dollar where you please if you want to help runaway teens and dirty atheist than start a charity for them and connect with like minded people. Such is the nature of a charitable mandate. ---
**Author:** ![DocCathode](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/doccathode/32/18773_2.png) [@DocCathode](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DocCathode)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2013, 10:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-government-social-programs-be-replaced-with-a-charitable-mandate/656949/24 "2013-04-28T22:49:00Z")
> [@Joshuagenes](#): > > If something is a trade it is not a gift and therefore not giving. > > I would like to keep the matter broad and much in the discretion of the giver so that it will apply to every noble cause. > > If congress finds some abuses in the future they can address them at that time. > Congress remains the exception handler for issues that may arise with this law. You have utterly failed to answer my question.\* Off the toppa my hed, Philabundance and Manna On Main Street would qualify as charities to any rational person. They give food to the poor. I’m assuming they would continue to qualify as charities in the world you envision. What about a fund to refurbish the Larry Fine mural on South Street? It could easily be set up as a nonprofit charitable organization. But, I think it’s not what you had in mind. - Technically I made a request rather than asking a question. I admit it. ---
**Author:** ![Joshuagenes](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/8e7dd6/32.png) [@Joshuagenes](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Joshuagenes)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2013, 10:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-government-social-programs-be-replaced-with-a-charitable-mandate/656949/25 "2013-04-28T22:52:48Z")
> [@msmith537](#): > > Never mind the fact it represents the worst kind of socialist wealth redistribution. The worst kind of socialist wealth redistribution is the on North Korea has. North Korea controls everything. A people helping people wealth redistribution has greater accountability to the giver. Our current redistribution of wealth system is tightly controlled by which every party happen to be in power and fails to maximise the freedom and accountability of the individual. You are currently forced to give to causes you may not agree with or in a manner that lacks effectivenesss. This mandate is an improved wealth redistribution system. ---
**Author:** ![monstro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba9def/32.png) [@monstro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monstro)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2013, 11:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-government-social-programs-be-replaced-with-a-charitable-mandate/656949/26 "2013-04-28T23:02:08Z")
> [@Joshuagenes](#): > > I hold you to be a responsible person and you can give your tax dollar where you please if you want to help runaway teens and dirty atheist than start a charity for them and connect with like minded people. Such is the nature of a charitable mandate. The “free market” shouldn’t be the arbiter of neediness and worthiness. The most unpopular causes are often the ones that deserve the most support. I don’t trust individuals to care more about society’s welfare than their own. ---
**Author:** ![Joshuagenes](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/8e7dd6/32.png) [@Joshuagenes](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Joshuagenes)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2013, 11:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-government-social-programs-be-replaced-with-a-charitable-mandate/656949/27 "2013-04-28T23:04:48Z")
> [@DocCathode](#): > > You have utterly failed to answer my question.\* > > Off the toppa my hed, Philabundance and Manna On Main Street would qualify as charities to any rational person. They give food to the poor. I’m assuming they would continue to qualify as charities in the world you envision. > > What about a fund to refurbish the Larry Fine mural on South Street? It could easily be set up as a nonprofit charitable organization. But, I think it’s not what you had in mind. > > - Technically I made a request rather than asking a question. I admit it. The government currently pays for causes like this. If the matter is paid for though the charitable mandate from private charities or individuals rather than the government this is preferable because the government tends to be inefficient. Also when the government directly spends money on these things they look like idiots but individual do not. ---
**Author:** ![DocCathode](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/doccathode/32/18773_2.png) [@DocCathode](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DocCathode)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2013, 11:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-government-social-programs-be-replaced-with-a-charitable-mandate/656949/28 "2013-04-28T23:09:13Z")
> [@Joshuagenes](#): > > The government currently pays for causes like this. If the matter is paid for though the charitable mandate from private charities or individuals rather than the government this is preferable because the government tends to be inefficient. Also when the government directly spends money on these things they look like idiots but individual do not. You have once again failed to respond to my request for clarification. Again, please define in precise legal terms who and what would be eligible to receive these funds. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2013, 11:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-government-social-programs-be-replaced-with-a-charitable-mandate/656949/29 "2013-04-28T23:12:48Z")
> [@Joshuagenes](#): > > What this mandate does is cut out the slow,inefficient, and ineffective middle man(the govenment) and exchanges it for highly accountible, efficient, and effective givers and charities. Your bias is showing. It’s an article of faith among some people that the private sector can do no wrong and the public sector can do no right but it’s a faith often unsupported by fact. These same people will talk about economics of scale when they’re swooning over some big corporation. But the same principle applies to charity as well. One big government agency can deliver more service per dollar than a hundred little private charities, each with its own office and president and administrative staff. So first prove your premise that private charities are more efficient and then we can discuss whether they’re a good idea. ---
**Author:** ![Joshuagenes](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/8e7dd6/32.png) [@Joshuagenes](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Joshuagenes)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2013, 11:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-government-social-programs-be-replaced-with-a-charitable-mandate/656949/30 "2013-04-28T23:17:50Z")
> [@monstro](#): > > The “free market” shouldn’t be the arbiter of neediness and worthiness. The most unpopular causes are often the ones that deserve the most support. > > I don’t trust individuals to care more about society’s welfare than their own. I sure there are a number of people who think as you do. Perhaps you can change people minds. If you don’t trust individuals to care more about society’s welfare than their own than you can’t trust the individual to vote for the right government either or for the right causes. In fact you can’t trust anybody but youself(maybe). In which case the best option you got is to take what money and power you have and invest it in the cause in which you believe. Thats what the charitable mandate empowers you to do. ---
**Author:** ![even\_sven](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/dfb087/32.png) [@even\_sven](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/even_sven)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2013, 11:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-government-social-programs-be-replaced-with-a-charitable-mandate/656949/31 "2013-04-28T23:23:42Z")
One major issue is that people tend to give emotionally, and what is emotionally appealing isn’t always what is effective. For example, those sponsor-a-child campaigns are a bad way to do things. If they actually worked they way they were sold, they may help a handful of children, but they wouldn’t make anything better in the long run. Furthermore, they’d build a lot of bad emotions when it comes to the children who were not chosen for sponsorship, or whose sponsorship ended (Sorry, Billy, no school for you this year!). That same money spent on a well or a schoolhouse, however, can build prosperity for the entire community for generations. The organizations that run these programs know that, and have largely abandon a direct “child sponsorship” model. But damned if they can get away from it. People just won’t give for actually useful community projects. Every time they stop advertising as “sponsor a child” campaigns, the money stops coming. So they have a choice between sticking with an inferior model that uses more money to help fewer people, or being able to do nothing at all. And stuff like this happens all the time. People tend to give to things with simple, straightforward narratives. But real-life problems are rarely simple and straightforward. Most donors don’t have the expertise or will to learn all the ins and outs of every cause, so they end up giving to less-effective organizations or not giving at all. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2013, 11:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-government-social-programs-be-replaced-with-a-charitable-mandate/656949/32 "2013-04-28T23:27:58Z")
Those who are against this system but who favor Obamacare, can you describe the difference? The main difference is that we already have a huge, highly regulated Health Insurance infrastructure set up. If the government involved itself in regulating Charitable Institutions, there is no reason to think that it couldn’t work similarly. It would be a disaster if we implemented such a switch overnight, but had we been doing things this way for the last 200 years, we’d figure out a way to make it work. ---
**Author:** ![Joshuagenes](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/8e7dd6/32.png) [@Joshuagenes](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Joshuagenes)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2013, 11:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-government-social-programs-be-replaced-with-a-charitable-mandate/656949/33 "2013-04-28T23:34:01Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > Your bias is showing. It’s an article of faith among some people that the private sector can do no wrong and the public sector can do no right but it’s a faith often unsupported by fact. > > These same people will talk about economics of scale when they’re swooning over some big corporation. But the same principle applies to charity as well. One big government agency can deliver more service per dollar than a hundred little private charities, each with its own office and president and administrative staff. > > So first prove your premise that private charities are more efficient and then we can discuss whether they’re a good idea. Of course I am biased who isn’t. Here is a link to a comparison study. [http://mises.org/journals/jls/21\_2/21\_2\_1.pdf](http://mises.org/journals/jls/21_2/21_2_1.pdf) Also consider the logic of direct giving. If I give directly to grandma she gets 100% of what I have given. I give to the government the government has costs that eat some of the money given and a percent less than 100 is than given to grandma. The economies of scale that a government has always seems to get lost and they become bureaocratic. This seems to also be true for large corporations. ---
**Author:** ![Joshuagenes](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/8e7dd6/32.png) [@Joshuagenes](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Joshuagenes)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2013, 11:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-government-social-programs-be-replaced-with-a-charitable-mandate/656949/34 "2013-04-28T23:43:49Z")
> [@even\_sven](#): > > One major issue is that people tend to give emotionally, and what is emotionally appealing isn’t always what is effective. > > For example, those sponsor-a-child campaigns are a bad way to do things. If they actually worked they way they were sold, they may help a handful of children, but they wouldn’t make anything better in the long run. Furthermore, they’d build a lot of bad emotions when it comes to the children who were not chosen for sponsorship, or whose sponsorship ended (Sorry, Billy, no school for you this year!). That same money spent on a well or a schoolhouse, however, can build prosperity for the entire community for generations. > > The organizations that run these programs know that, and have largely abandon a direct “child sponsorship” model. But damned if they can get away from it. People just won’t give for actually useful community projects. Every time they stop advertising as “sponsor a child” campaigns, the money stops coming. So they have a choice between sticking with an inferior model that uses more money to help fewer people, or being able to do nothing at all. > > And stuff like this happens all the time. People tend to give to things with simple, straightforward narratives. But real-life problems are rarely simple and straightforward. Most donors don’t have the expertise or will to learn all the ins and outs of every cause, so they end up giving to less-effective organizations or not giving at all. Emotional giving is also true of government charities and elections have been one and lost because of them. I do believe there is always a need to educate people concerning charity and for this I leave in your capable hands. I believe it is important to pick just one or two cause that you care about and check out the organizations you give to. I do this by research and volunteering and you should too. ---
**Author:** ![waterj2](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/858c86/32.png) [@waterj2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/waterj2)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2013, 11:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-government-social-programs-be-replaced-with-a-charitable-mandate/656949/35 "2013-04-28T23:55:14Z")
> [@Joshuagenes](#): > > I want people to be specific when they say the Idea is lame and get into details, Why?, how?, etc. > > Consider the efficiency of direct giving. My Grandmother is on Social > Security and I pay Social Security tax. If I give her the money directly then there is no need for the social security administration and the costs associated. By this measure more money can end up in the hands of the poor. This pretty much destroys the “security” part of Social Security. Right now, Social Security guarantees a certain level of benefits for everyone who’s paid into the system. The elderly don’t have to rely on the whims of their relatives or charities. They have benefits coming to them. We can all plan in advance knowing that Social Security will be there for our retirement. Hence the whole “security” thing. The NBER has [a study showing that expanding Social Security benefits](http://www.nber.org/bah/summer04/w10466.html) over the period 1960–1995 lowered the poverty rate among the elderly from 35% to under 10%. Your system would go in the other direction. Meanwhile, the [administrative expenses](http://www.ssa.gov/oact/STATS/admin.html) of the Social Security program in 2012 were 0.5% of the retirement program and 2.1% of the disability program, or 0.8% of the total. I don’t see how you’re going to let people pay their taxes to their elderly relatives and provide enough oversight to keep the system from being overrun with fraud for anywhere near that cheap. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2013, 12:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-government-social-programs-be-replaced-with-a-charitable-mandate/656949/36 "2013-04-29T00:17:05Z")
> [@Joshuagenes](#): > > Most certainly this will force them to compete and make their case to the public making them more efficient and effective at helping the poor. :rolleyes: No, it won’t. Private charities had centuries to do a good job, and they failed miserably. Government funded social welfare has done an enormously better job. > [@Joshuagenes](#): > > You need to account for the increased efficiency of private giving in your calculation. It’s not more efficient. > [@Joshuagenes](#): > > If people have spent their retirement or have fallen into poverty will you not take care of them? Won’t you also be taken care of? No, and no. In the dog-eat-dog, let-the-poor-and-sick-die society you want to create like everyone else I’d be looking out for me and mine, _because no one else will._ > [@Joshuagenes](#): > > A people helping people wealth redistribution has greater accountability to the giver. No, it have virtually none at all. And it has zero “accountability” for the damage done to society by such an unfair system. > [@Joshuagenes](#): > > The government currently pays for causes like this. If the matter is paid for though the charitable mandate from private charities or individuals rather than the government this is preferable because the government tends to be inefficient. You keep saying the government is less efficient like it’s a given, instead of being a right wing propaganda line. > [@Joshuagenes](#): > > Also when the government directly spends money on these things they look like idiots but individual do not. :rolleyes: Even if that was true, so what? > [@Joshuagenes](#): > > Also consider the logic of direct giving. If I give directly to grandma she gets 100% of what I have given. Which is an argument against your proposal, since you are admitting that in reality even for you it’ll be all about “give to my own, and to hell with everyone else”. > [@Joshuagenes](#): > > Emotional giving is also true of government charities and elections have been one and lost because of them. I do believe there is always a need to educate people concerning charity and for this I leave in your capable hands. I believe it is important to pick just one or two cause that you care about and check out the organizations you give to. And when the starving, desperate people your system creates kill you or I and rob our corpses so they have food to eat, that’s just the price we have to pay for economic ideological purity, yes? ---
**Author:** ![Oakminster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/77aa72/32.png) [@Oakminster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Oakminster)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2013, 12:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-government-social-programs-be-replaced-with-a-charitable-mandate/656949/37 "2013-04-29T00:21:05Z")
> [@Joshuagenes](#): > > Most certainly this will force them to compete and make their case to the public making them more efficient and effective at helping the poor. You appear to have no clue as to the way things actually work. Poverty is not something that can be solved with grand theories dreamed up in some classroom by ignorant kids with no experience in the real world. Your proposal would kill people. Real, living, breathing people that would not get the food, medicine, medical care, baby formula, etc. that they need because more people gave their mandated donation to “Save teh Kittehs with chezeburger LOL” than to WIC or Medicaid this month. And the ultimate proof of how ridiculous your proposal is----you’ve got me and **Der Trihs** on the same side of an argument. ---
**Author:** ![DocCathode](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/doccathode/32/18773_2.png) [@DocCathode](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DocCathode)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2013, 12:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-government-social-programs-be-replaced-with-a-charitable-mandate/656949/38 "2013-04-29T00:28:25Z")
> [@Joshuagenes](#): > > I sure there are a number of people who think as you do. Perhaps you can change people minds. If you don’t trust individuals to care more about society’s welfare than their own than you can’t trust the individual to vote for the right government either or for the right causes. In fact you can’t trust anybody but youself(maybe). In which case the best option you got is to take what money and power you have and invest it in the cause in which you believe. Thats what the charitable mandate empowers you to do. You don’t believe that people are altruistic and will value society’s good over their own either. If you really believed that, there’d be no need for a mandate. People would simply give of their own free will. ---
**Author:** ![Joshuagenes](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/8e7dd6/32.png) [@Joshuagenes](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Joshuagenes)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2013, 12:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-government-social-programs-be-replaced-with-a-charitable-mandate/656949/39 "2013-04-29T00:40:33Z")
> [@Oakminster](#): > > You appear to have no clue as to the way things actually work. Poverty is not something that can be solved with grand theories dreamed up in some classroom by ignorant kids with no experience in the real world. Your proposal would kill people. Real, living, breathing people that would not get the food, medicine, medical care, baby formula, etc. that they need because more people gave their mandated donation to “Save teh Kittehs with chezeburger LOL” than to WIC or Medicaid this month. > > And the ultimate proof of how ridiculous your proposal is----you’ve got me and **Der Trihs** on the same side of an argument. Most certainly people do give to pet causes but if you make the assumption that people are stupid and won’t prioritize correctly with their giving it remains your responsibility to educate them otherwise. As to your assumption concerning how people give privately please provide documented evidence to make your case. I highly doubt the reprecussions that you suggest as all these things are provided by private charities currently. Also please explain why you should be the judge of how people ought to give rather than themselves. ---
**Author:** ![Oakminster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/77aa72/32.png) [@Oakminster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Oakminster)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2013, 12:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-government-social-programs-be-replaced-with-a-charitable-mandate/656949/40 "2013-04-29T00:49:41Z")
> [@Joshuagenes](#): > > Most certainly people do give to pet causes but if you make the assumption that people are stupid and won’t prioritize correctly with their giving it remains your responsibility to educate them otherwise. As to your assumption concerning how people give privately please provide documented evidence to make your case. I highly doubt the reprecussions that you suggest as all these things are provided by private charities currently. Also please explain why you should be the judge of how people ought to give rather than themselves. I’m not going to do your homework for you. I will tell you that I spent most of the last decade working in poverty law in the rural South. Pretty sure I understand the problem in ways you never will. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-government-social-programs-be-replaced-with-a-charitable-mandate/656949.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-government-social-programs-be-replaced-with-a-charitable-mandate/656949.md?page=3)