Will help be provided where and when it is most needed? Can volunteers know how to focus their efforts in the most relevant way, without forgetting anyone that needs it? Will there be enough of them, in the right place, and with the right support? What happens if they stop for any reason (lack of availability, loss of motivation, or any other personal obstacle)?
Again, I hate to use another example from the US, given the current incompetent leadership, but these questions could all be asked of the public sector, as well, except that lack of motivation should be replaced by a perceived ability to do away with programs since the public won't be paying attention. It happens all the time, and it is not limited to America. You can't work with the assumption that the state can answer these questions in all, or even most, cases.
Personally, I'll pay my taxes and support charities I trust to do work I bellieve in. WHEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!
Via the state, and progressive taxation, the free rider problem is eliminated, as is, if done correctly, administrative redundancy, another economic ineffiency of the charity approach.
In any event, using the US as an example is basically at best a red herring. Just because the Americans don't know how to do public administration (nor, often, public anything) doesn't mean it cannot be done.
It simply means it cannot be done (and this is essentially for political reasons) in America... "C'est un scandale !"
I'm not arguing for privately- or publicly-run welfare. I'm arguing that Jerome is wrong to assume that the state will cover all the bases.
The free rider problem is a good point, of course, but is it not an even greater problem to have citizens voting for politicians who will increase the budget while cutting their taxes? Now we've moved into an intergenerational free-rider problem, except that, in this case, kids -- whose federal credit is maxed out by their brainless, spoiled Boomer parents -- have no say in the decision. WHEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!
And you are also of course right to hold that the state will not cover all the bases. But it should cover most, and this is the point I think he's trying to make. There will always be places for philanthropy, but philanthropy is not a policy.
I reckon that Jerome is experiencing something very personal in this regard, and I can tell you that I went through the same thing in America, and instead of getting support for my wife staying at home to care for my son, I burned through savings and ultimately went into debt. (And let's not even get into the hospital bills which, despite my supposedly excellent insurance, piled up.) In America, getting out from under severe misfortune is left to charity (eg, American Children's Cancer Society, United Way, et c.) This is as criminal as it is inefficient.
This being said, citizens may think they are voting for a simultaneous increase in the budget and decrease in taxes, but this is simply what the fools are led to believe. There'll be taxes to pay for it, one way or another, inflation being one such tax in all likelihood. A nation of rubes when it comes to governance is what it comes down to. "C'est un scandale !"
My essential point is that nobody should expect the private sector or the public sector to accomplish everything. They're complements, not substitutes. Where one falls short, the other should pick up the slack. WHEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!
the free rider problem is eliminated
In that case, you have a free-rider problem -- you, of course, being the free rider in this example. In the case of a charity, people who refuse to donate, but still enjoy the benefits (often positive externalities), are free riders. WHEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!
This year I donated 22500 euros to FSF France, this will cost me only 7650 euros.
What are the conditions in the USA?
If you gave $10,000 to a charity such as the American Red Cross, that $10,000 would be deducted from your income for the tax calculation,,,so your income for the calculation is $90,000. So your tax bill is 10% of $40,000=$4000 plus 35% of $50,000=$17,500,,,,,a total Federal tax bill of $21,500. So your income after tax is $68,500.
The effect of this is that the charity gets your $10,000 contribution, but since you get a $3500 tax savings, the government effectively pays $3500 of your $10,000 donation--and your after tax income is only lower by $6,500, rather than by lower by the full $10,000.
There are limitations to how much you can deduct each year, but the excess deduction carries over to future years, and I don't think there is a limit on how many years it takes you to use up your deduction.
An important distinction is that the deduction is not against your tax bill in the US, but instead against your tax income--as shown in the example. I think some other systems do their calculations from your tax payment.
Looks like France has one of the more generous tax code for donation to charities, but it looks like the media aren't aware of this :).
It seems obvious to me that in countries where the "state is evil" mantra has led to a reduction of the state share, people care less about what the state does and so the state becomes really incompetent at about everything it does (and corrupted).
Look at voter participation rates.
