A Different Kind of Government Spending

In a comment on my previous post (see below), Mr. Bolos asked two very interesting questions: "What would be the results if private charity was replaced by a government tax that gave to people in need? Would 'charity' end up in the hands of a very different group of people in need?" This gave me something interesting to think about, because I haven't ever really thought of government involvement in charity work.

I did some research on the topic and found an article from The Washington Times, and although it was written in April 2010, I think it still applies. After giving a nationwide poll, the author of the article concluded the following:

"Voluntary charity is a solid American virtue, but the conditions of who is helped, when and how should not be dictated by government. If government provides food for a family...it should come from existing government funds, not from an increase in taxes."

This brings up a few things. First of all, it emphasizes the strong American ideal of giving charity. Benefits have been around for a long time. Officials would hold balls during wartime to raise money for supplies. It's even a religious value in many religions. Second of all, it speaks to the issue surrounding the decider of who will be helped and how. The example the poll uses is a poor neighbor who needs food, and most Americans said it was the government's job to provide the neighbor with food if no one else is stepping up and helping them. However, this money cannot be money brought in by taxes. This is interesting to me, because the way I understand this is that the Americans are making the decisions of who gets to receive the charity, but it's the government that has to pay.

There are two feasible ways to go if the government gave charity. It could tax Americans, whether it be in the form of an increase in a current tax or the creation of a new "charity" tax. If this were to happen, it would be reasonable to donate to the cause that the majority of Americans deem most worthy. Another way to go would be to use government funds, but then it should be the government deciding where the money would go because it would be their money being used.

This is getting to be a pretty long post, but I would just like to quickly address the second question. If there was no private charity and instead it was the government who donated, the money would indeed end up in a very different group of people. A great amount of our private donations are sent out to different countries like Africa, India, and Mexico. If the government was in charge of giving out donations, the charity would probably only go to Americans. But is that a bad thing? We spend so much time engrossed in movements like Kony 2012, and we fail to see the poverty and the famine that are right before our eyes.