I say that because the term 'wealth redistribution' when it's used usually carries with it a loaded connotation, which I'm not sure if you meant to communicate across or not.
It's vitally important that we maintain and fund 'wealth redistribution' programs so that a lot of folks are at least able to carry on from day to day.
Wealth redistribution is a term of art that has a meaning which isn't necessarily a negative.
In general, the problems with these programs is that they create dependency, and cannot be cut. When rough times come around, the first thing to be slashed are the citizen facing (and often job impacting) functions like street cleaning, police patrols and staffing at the city clerk's office.
As an example, in my US State, the Department of Transportation hasn't pruned trees and has reduced mowing at the roadside since 2009. The result? Traffic signs are obscured by branches (safety hazard), and the road drainage systems are going to be clogged by leaves and brush. This builds an implicit debt, as mowing grass and cutting trees is cheaper than rebuilding roads early and dealing with the human and financial costs of accidents. In the meantime, Medicaid spending automatically increases as much as 10-15% a year.
> It's vitally important that we maintain and fund 'wealth redistribution' programs so that a lot of folks are at least able to carry on from day to day.
Many people disagree and believe that this end is much better served through charity than through (wasteful, bureaucratic, inherently un-personal) redistribution.
Tax planning for the purpose of charity is just "putting your money where your mouth is".
Social Security in the US is supposed to have minuscule overhead.
In Canada, even the government can't always be trusted to not give money to charity groups that are anti-gay -- individuals might find that a feature, not a bug, of the charity :P.
Knowing an accountant, I know that many charities put barely any of their income towards the actual charity (the legal minimum is 2%.. two percent!).
Breast cancer gets huge amounts of donations, while less glamourous, but more lethal cancers get much less.
I know that if I were to hit hard times, I'd rather have something not too personal, rather than feeling beholden to random people, nice and generous as they may be.
Plus, do we really want selfish people to keep the most money? :) Screw those people, give with the rest of us, with professionals deciding where the money goes, not random people's pet interests :P
Wow, did not know the US spent so much on healthcare, considering that it is not free for all. In the UK we spend about 10% GDP and it's free for everyone. Different set ups I know, but seems crazy to spend more, and then ask people to spend loads on health insurance.
These functions are only a small portion of government spending - it's mostly just wealth redistribution.
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/piechart_2011_US_total