Question

Five ways on how the government can ensure that the help it offers is received only the people who are in need

Answer 1

Answer:

Here is your answer.

Explanation:

We don’t need three ways. We need to stop offering all “help”. Government is singularly inefficient at “helping”, and no bureaucracy has ever made things better.

Let private charity (which is infinitely more effective and flexible) take care of the “problems” (mostly created by or worsened by government), and we’ll all be better off.

Most importantly, people can direct their charity towards those groups who are “the people … in need”, as opposed to those who “qualify” for largesse stolen by the state.

Secondly, the dollars given to a charity are much more likely to end up in the pockets of the truly needy. Many of the charities I am familiar with have staffs made up almost entirely of volunteers. These charities have less than 5% “expenses”, and more than 95% “benefits” actually paid out.

Third, charities have an incentive to help people get out of poverty. Bureaucracies are incented to keep people in poverty. The more people they “serve”, the more the bureaucrats “earn”, the bigger their fiefdoms, and the more power they have.

Fourth, charity ennobles both giver and recipient and the service providers, while welfare demeans all who “participate”, even the bureaucrats. It creates a mentality of dependence and entitlement. It weakens the link between wanting something and earning it. It creates racism and snobbery. It divides us into camps of “producers” and “takers”. It forces us to pay while we would rather contribute in other ways or to other services.

Welfare is based on coercion. charity is based on love. Which is the better motivator? Which is more humane?

Hope it helps!

PLEASE MARK ME AS BRAINLIEST.