Hacker News Reader

Comment by phil248 | Hacker News Reader

Similarly why a robust welfare state is preferable to charity. Charitable giving is free to discriminate and there's no mechanism to try and move it towards those who most need it.

View on HN

Do you think welfare state actually distributes funds to whoever needs them? They are giving funds away to everyone who can check x boxes on a form, no one in the government ever verifies if the person actually needs the money, like a charity would do.

Like some charities would do.

If you give charity to someone on gofundme, what charity ever verifies if the person actually needs the money?

You verify it when you select where to give your money. Otherwise they are forcefully taken from you and distributed, and the most you can say about it is filling a ballot every two years.

I find it hard to see how a charity would be able to see into people's lives enough to make that decision, compared to the state which can and does prosecute if you lie on the form.

> can and does prosecute if you lie on the form

The government has no incentive to reduce or even investigate this type of fraud. Enforcement is selective at best.

I implied there are mechanisms in a welfare state that can be used to try to move resources to where they are needed most.

There are no mechanisms whatsoever to force Bob the billionaire to do a god damn thing with his own money, other than to give the billionaire more tax breaks.

I also used to work in certification for government benefits, and I can assure you there are, in many cases, safeguards and verification.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com