Dude, make shorter posts, Site evidence to back up your claims, I have backed up my claims with links to studies and with basic logic. Where is yours?
There is an old Russian saying that says “Trust, but check” this is my take on the matter. It is important to have a mandate for the purpose of reforming and replacing the current system.
For someone who’s standing so strongly on the principle of self-determination, the OP is certainly relying a lot on “you” to make sure his proposal works.
As the person who originally proposed this highly flawed idea, the burden of proof is on YOU to “provide documented evidence to make your case.” So far, I have not even seen a token effort to address the questions other posters have put to you.
Sounds a lot like the Islamic practice of Zakat.
This is a good post as it has both logic and sites evidence. Here is a link to the rising poverty rates since 1960 which includes your data. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_poverty_rate_by_age._Timeline.gif but also shown is rising poverty rates overall.
People fraud social security today. To say that there will be more fraud or less fraud is hard to say. I have provided a stipulation that people do give and failing to do so can get you stripped of your assets.
As to the security of social security disability administration. It remains to be seen if it is false security. Governments fail too although not as often, they fail bigger. It is more damaging to drink hard on the weekend than to spread your drinking out thoughout the week. So it is with failures. As the social security administration is part of the government congress has been borrowing it’s funds for other purposes. This would be less likely to happen if they were private. It is not good to have choke points and single points of failure in charity for the same reasons we build redundancy into computer systems via raid configurations. To say social security is efficient in the shortrun may be true but most certainly not in the long run. I recommend reading “Antifragile by Nassim Taleb” to deepen your understanding of long term efficiency.
You’re providing a cite from the Ludwig von Mises Institute? They’re about as credible as the Institute for Policy Studies.
This reminds me of a clever argument made by Matt Bruenig, “Instead, how about you rely on charity to achieve your distributive goals?”:
One of the goals of government social programs is to create a wealth distribution that people prefer to what would exist without those programs. A system of charity, where the bulk of the money that would go towards those social programs is controlled by the whims of the wealthy would lead to a wealth distribution less palatable to most people than the current system where democratic institutions make those decisions (however bad they are at actually giving a shit about the concerns of the non-wealthy).
Or mandated tithing for Jews and some Christian groups. It is similar.
And the wealthy don’t have major influence over how the government gives?
Credibility is a subjective matter swayed by the beliefs of perceiver.
Debate the evidence.
The burden is on all of us to provide proof and logic. Have you followed the links I have provided" Have you sought the true concerning the evidence produced? Have you hashed out the logic? Stop being Lazy and take a little responsibility upon your shoulders.
Can you find the actual part of the Woodson study that shows how he reached the calculation that only 30% of tax dollars intended for welfare actually reach the intended recipients? All I can find are libertarian publications referring to that conclusion, but not any discussion of how that conclusion was reached.
It is in book form maybe you can find it at the library.
Woodson, Robert L. 1989. Breaking the Poverty Cycle: Private Sector Alternatives
to the Welfare State.
I believe Michael Tanner of the Cato Institute reconfirmed the study in 1996.
Here is a link to a recent policy paper by Michael Tanner.http://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/PA694.pdf
The Cato Institute? Hardly people whom I’d consider trustworthy or objective.
We’re advocating a system that’s up and running in the real world. You’re proposing a system that doesn’t exist outside of people’s imagination. So the burden of proof that your system would be better is on you.
The system already exists in voluntary form. Also it has existed much longer in the form of Jewish, Christian, and Muslim tithing. It has existed since ancient times while the government dole has come and gone. For some religious people it is mandatory but the mandate is from their church and not the government. Is it such a stretch to consider doing the same thing with secular government? Why put so much faith in the government who remains a single point of failure for the system?
That’s not how it works. You made a claim. You back it up with evidence. It’s your responsibility to find the book you cite and post the relevant section. We are under no burden to do it for you.
You believe? You believe? No. You post a cite or you retract the claim.
These people have strong infuence on the government you do trust. Do you still Trust the government? Do you trust the government when it is fill with elected people that you don’t agree with?
At least the Charitable mandate allows you to put your money towards causes and people you do trust.
Which just demonstrates its inadequacy. It’s been tried. It doesn’t work.
It’s not “faith”. It’s recognition that government has done a better job of constructing social safety nets than all of the alternatives. Government is simply better at this sort of thing. More efficient, more effective, usually even fairer.
Not that strong obviously, or we’d be seeing general social collapse into the neofeudal anarchy they want.
Garbage. It will create massive inequality, poverty and social instability - that’s what it always has done in the past. I’ll be keeping all my money for myself in that scenario; I’ll need it.