What's more efficient: charity or government welfare?

[andrew320]

A few months ago, I read a very interesting study that looked at how charities are far more efficient than government when it comes to administrative costs. As I have suspected since my days at high school, charities distribute their funds to the needy far better than government.

The study found that charities spend roughly 30 cents of every dollar on administration, while governments spend 75 cents of every dollar on administration.

This is a simple case of charities being beholden to donors, while governments can just steal more of your money to pay for welfare.

If there was no income tax, who would you give your money to: a charity or the government?

 

[tecoyah]

Too bad charity reaches so few...would be wonderful if we could do without Government Support of the unfortunate masses.

 

[clax]

Too bad charity reaches so few...would be wonderful if we could do without Government Support of the unfortunate masses.

I think it could if the abusers are stopped. Such awful abuse. I suppress it first hand but I am not allowed to do anything

 

[chris7375]

I think it is dependent on the charity. Not all charities are not good. Though not all are bad. The study I read though had a little different results not by much though. It was 20 for charity and 80 for government.

I myself think charity is the way to go.

 

[bluefig]

Charity is the moral way to go for it involves no use of force what-so-ever. The poor were by and large, not dying on the streets in this country prior to the establishment of the welfare state. If there were no family members to take them in during hard times there were often community associations or churches that would help them out, temporarily. One immoral aspect of the welfare state is the dependence that it breeds, creating generations of recipients. I hear this effect is actually worse in Great Britain than in the US. Anyway, I vote for charity over welfare.

 

[blurinoctober]

There are some god-awful charities out there but, you're right, the government's not too great at what they do either. Maybe they should take notice and learn from the best charities. Maybe team up, figure out the best way to divide money, and actually help the poor on a huge scale. If only, right?

 

[myp]

The answer to the question will depend on the charity. Some are more efficient than the government, others not so much. The government has better information and can better take advantage of economies of scale.

 

[chris7375]

The answer to the question will depend on the charity. Some are more efficient than the government, others not so much. The government has better information and can better take advantage of economies of scale.

How I seen and read reports about it and from personal experience. The charities that tend to be more apt to fail are those that provide multiple things at once.

Like the Juvenile Diabetes Foundation. They provide multiple things with the funds which makes them run a little less efficient why i don't know. The provide help for families and research grants among some of the things. For what ever reason the are not as efficient as Charities that focus on one or two things. Such as Feed the Poor, or even the Kalamazoo Project.

My experience was with the Susan B. Komen foundation which provides multiple funding for many different things from research to help of the families. The problem we faced was a lot of red tape and after that was done they continues to drag their feet. Though we got some help from them if it was a life or death situation we would have been in trouble.