There's other arguments in favour of government programs though. For one, a lot of the wealth that's generated in a country is due to the collective historical effort of the people which is summed up in the state (for americans, the "government").
So taxation is simply the United States of America, or Norway, or Sweden, taking back some of the resources of the "now" that have been generated thanks to the collective effort of the "past".
Also, there is actual research on the effectiveness of government programs (such as food stamps for example) in increasing quality of life of children who grow up on these; compared to those who grow up without those. In reality, children don't choose where they are born, and as much as it is the parent's job to raise them it is not the child's fault to not have gotten responsible parents.
So, in reality, tax payers shouldn't be doing charity. Why would they? If charity is needed then the government is obviously not collecting enough or allocating resources efficiently. I would very much say that charity is a systemic failure, and philanthropy is usually spear headed by the very same people who argue against universalist measures such as higher taxation. Why would a billionaire know where resources are needed better than the government, who has much more data on people to properly know where money should go.
So, in my opinion, it's really easy to argue against philanthropy and in favour of government programs. I mean, there's a lot of data out there.
So taxation is simply the United States of America, or Norway, or Sweden, taking back some of the resources of the "now" that have been generated thanks to the collective effort of the "past".
Also, there is actual research on the effectiveness of government programs (such as food stamps for example) in increasing quality of life of children who grow up on these; compared to those who grow up without those. In reality, children don't choose where they are born, and as much as it is the parent's job to raise them it is not the child's fault to not have gotten responsible parents.
So, in reality, tax payers shouldn't be doing charity. Why would they? If charity is needed then the government is obviously not collecting enough or allocating resources efficiently. I would very much say that charity is a systemic failure, and philanthropy is usually spear headed by the very same people who argue against universalist measures such as higher taxation. Why would a billionaire know where resources are needed better than the government, who has much more data on people to properly know where money should go.
So, in my opinion, it's really easy to argue against philanthropy and in favour of government programs. I mean, there's a lot of data out there.