Certainly a basic concern for many is helping the needy. While poverty might not be at the forefront of this current election, it does seem to be a difference that people think they understand between the left (liberals/democrats) and the right (conservatives/democrats). The conservatives are viewed as stingy (lower taxes for everyone, keep more of our own money) and the liberals are viewed as concerned about the economically oppressed (tax the rich, give to the poor).
You might be surprised to find out these stereotypes don't hold true. In fact, according to data, conservatives have a significant edge over liberals on actual giving out of their own pocketbook. In his book, "Who Really Cares," Arthur C Brooks uses IRS data to determine that a person is most likely to give if he/she is religious and conservative. And this is not in relation to income. According to the book, those most charitable give a much higher percentage of their income than wealthy liberals. (This is not to negate the giving of anyone - all giving is important, generous and kind and we are thankful for it).
Clearly the difference isn't a lack of compassion. Helping those who are seriously poor is a high priority, and one that we as individuals ought to be concerned about. The difference is HOW the poor are helped.
Logical ways we can best help the poor:
1) Independant or faith-based charities do this and they do it well. They are invested, intentional, caring, and personal. They have a sincere heart for helping others. They are an actual friendly face, not just a building. They invest in people one-on-one and change lives on more than just a financial level. The government, undeniably, is impersonal. It's more like dealing with a building than dealing with a person. Government does not come with a heart, it's more of a robot. (This is ok. It is meant to function as a strong-hold for us, not to overburden our personal lives).
2) Independent charities are efficient and cost-productive. Often times when you give money to a charity, over 80% or 90% of what you give goes right to the heart of the charity, while only a small percentage covers overhead. The government is not cost-productive. It is not unlikely that for every $10 of our tax money, even $5 of that actually goes to actually help individuals. It is simply impossible that a huge bueaucracy would understand the needs of an individual as well as someone in their own community would.
3) It is a fact that the more government run aid we have, the less people give to charity. When people don't expect the government to step in, people actually give more (to organizations who use their money efficiently). When people see the government as taking on this role for them, we as a society become less-generous, less compassionate, more apathetic people overall. This is bad for our country's morale. When our money is simply "taken from us" by the government so that a portion of it will eventually find it's way to someone in need, we also miss out on opportunities to connect with and personalize service and charity, a lesson many of us want to teach our children.
4) Unfortunately government is so big and impersonal that it is also at risk for hurting the poor while trying to help. Perhaps you've been effected personally by rent-control policies, intending to make housing more affordable, yet ultimately resulting in fewer units being available, and at lower qualities? Or even minimum wage increases intending to give lower income workers more income, but resulting in the loss of jobs for many when businesses can't afford it? On the surface, these ideas seem wonderful. But one or two steps in, they are negatively effected by the logical cause and effect of commerce and economics.
5) For those of you with a faith background, the questions often comes up regarding the Bible's emphasis on taking care of the poor. This is very very true. But the Bible absolutely does not tell us to leave it up to the government. Rather the theme of "personal responsibility" abounds. We are to be the "hands and feet," reaching individuals one-on-one, with aid and with love. There is no "out" for this. Voting for higher taxes and more government action does not somehow qualify you as having met these commands. If you are not actively involved in reaching those who are truly needy, we encourage you to find a way to do so.
Does all of these mean to imply that it is somehow "logical" for government to quit supporting the needy? Not at all. But government needs to step in only where it is necessary, with limitations and motivations in mind, and back off where people and communities are better equipped. In cases of national disasters, severe economic crisis, or other national concerns, the government is often just the assistance that communities need.
In the case of welfare, aid needs to come either to those who are truly needy and cannot help themselves, or it needs to be a temporary fix to help individuals get back on their feet again while they pursue further education, job training, or job searching. It is not logical that aid without motivation, incentive, or timeline will produce more responsible and economically fruitful individuals, which is undeniably better for our society as a whole.
Voting for higher taxes will not logically help the poor and needy in any way near as much as if you invested that amount yourself in individuals and local charities. The ultimate logic: Keep your money and then be generous with it. (And since you will then know where it ended up and who it helped, you will likely be much more joyful about your giving).
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
