I mean no offense by this, Jerome, but I think you're putting far too much faith in the state to do the right thing.  That's the fallacy people fall into: Recognizing all of the bad things about the private sector and comparing those with something resembling, or even something that is, an ideal of state intervention.  The state wasn't worth the powder to blow to hell during Katrina.  Charities couldn't handle that enormous burden, obviously, because of the enormous scale of the devastation, but at least they stepped up to the degree that it was possible.

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.

Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.