do you think charities are more succesful than the government in confronting problems in society?

Question

and why so?

Answer 1

No. Charities are underfunded and consequently the help they can offer is usually very limited.

For example: the Government in the UK can "top up" the earnings of low income families with tax credits. We are one such low income family (not in the slightest bit "lazy". We are low paid as my partner is on minimum wage and I'm currently at home taking care of our baby son ) and we receive £70 per week ($140) in Tax Credits from the Government to "top up" our income.

No Charity would be able to do this for all the low income families that turn to it for help. Every charity I've ever approached for help in the past has just shrugged and said theres nothing they can do, or the most they can offer is "advice".

The housing charity, Shelter, in the UK cannot provide homeless families with accommodation (despite their name), all they can do is offer "advice" about their housing "options" (the money raised for the charity goes into paying the advisors large salaries). The Government is able to rehouse homeless families or offer practical help such as temporary accommodation while they find something more permanent.

However the Government do not always help people get out of poverty *permanently*. My partner wants to retrain so that he can get a better job and that way we won't need Government Tax Credits. As we have a poor credit rating we can't get a bank loan to pay his training fees and the Government, despite being willing to give you handouts, won't help in any way with this. Its crazy! Sometimes I think they would be better offering help with training so that people can get well paid jobs and work their way out of poverty, rather than just bailing us out of poverty with Tax Credits.

Answer 2

Once a government gets it's nose in the charities spend more time on paper work than in doing the job. They respect the other government at the expense of the needy. Of course they also need trips with huge hotel expenses to check progress and of course business class air travel

Answer 3

That is a good question, because it is difficult to imagine any organisation that could be worse than the Government in terms of achieving objectives. However, charities could be that rare exception, because they have a vested interest in not achieving the very thing that they were set up to achieve. Funding and jobs depend on failure, or partial failure. I think that cancer charities are probably a very good example.

I do not intend this as a cynical answer. My wife died from cancer, giving me relevant experience.

So, perhaps the Government is the least worst.

Answer 4

For small-scale problems, charities probably the best. But if you are referring to problems and suffering on a national or international scale....99 percent of them are due to the wrong people being in charge. That takes politics to change but not the self-serving partisan cigar puffers we have now. Would take a non-partisan army of ordinary folks to monitor the changes. Write me.....Anteater

Answer 5

Easily better. The worst part of this all who here can account for what charities the government has sent our money too> The Kenyan Yacht Association what?

Answer 6

Yes, churches and local charities have always done a better job and at lower cost. Government has no business redistributing wealth.

Answer 7

Absolutely - Look at the money raised for Katrina and the Tsunami tragedy a couple years ago

Answer 8

Charities concentrate on one problem.
Governments look at all problems.
Jack of all trades master of none.

Answer 9

charities only encourage the government to neglect its responsibilities

Answer 10

ANYTHING is more successful than the govt in confronting and solving society's problems.
If the govt were so successful., then New Orleans would be a paradise to live in.