Charity versus welfare (or healthcare) state ... George, you sure have a knack of picking fundamental topics!!! Ok, where's my can opener for this can of worms ...
1. Charity is commendable. Even in the most welfarishest of states it still will make sense.
2. There is an interdependency between charity and governmental distribution of welfare aid. The US has more of the former and less of the latter, in Europe it's the other way around. There is a cultural divide here.
3. Charity is basically anti-democratic. It sees the wealthy few giving to the perceived needy AND worthy. And - another issue - the perceived needy AND worthy are all too often the "human baby seals" as opposed to, say, "orphaned cobra babies". A foundation donating money for the resocializing of former sex offenders just doesn't sound as good as one financing aids research or the education of - danger!!! stereotype approaching!!! - black teenage single moms in Chicago. There is also the issue that whenever a huge wealth is donated to something good, it is usually tax efficient and thus withdraws funds from the state. I know, George, your argument would be "so much the better, the state is an inefficient money waster, charity is effective and actually gets things done!" And that has a true core.
4. The welfare state is blind. And to a degree it is good (or sensible) that it is, because that way the "orphaned baby cobras" get something too. Think of the blindfolded symbol of justice, it is a meatphor for neutrality. Welfare is neutral, charity isn't and it doesn't have to be.
5. We all know that welfare can be addictive, there are generations of people who never get out of it in the US and in Europe. It becomes a way of life. That is not a good thing. I'm the first to say if you get money from the state, it's only fair that you work for it (if you healthwise can) and if that means cleaning public parks so be it. But charity has issues too. The black teenage single mom in Chicago probably doesn't care whether the money comes from the Chicago municipal welfare authority or from the George Carlston & Sons Foundation. If you're hungry enough, any hand is good enough not to be bitten. But let's take the Midwest auto worker, all of the sudden out of a job and his tried and trusted health insurance, with a wife with freshly diagnosed cancer who gets shafted by her (additional) private health insurance because she didn't disclose how her aunt in Montana died of breast cancer. Would you rather see her supported by charity or by a welfare/healthcare system that is basically a contract between the people to finance individual need via the solidarity of all? I would prefer welfare to charity, though I'd be thankful for and humbled by both. To me, welfare/healthcare should finance the bare necessities and the ability to flow with the economic lower quarter of society, charity should pinpoint additional need and that is where it makes perfect sense and is, yes, more effecient and more targeted than that oafish blind welfare/healthcare state.
6. Going back to item 2: There is no doubt about charity culture being more prominent and more widespread in the US than in Europe. But that doesn't mean that it's unheard of here. When the Spouses Gates erected another charity foundation (all credit to them for that) in the US some months ago, there was a discussion in the German media about why nothing of the sort happened here and professional charity foundation advisers said "it does happen here, but people like to keep their anonimity about it". And they don't donate hundreds of millions like Herr and Frau Gates (mainly because we don't have that many billionaires in Germany), but rather tens of millions and single digit millions. And, yes, it's tax efficent here too. Why are they so secretive about it? Culture. I'm not insinuating that there is anything overt, much less obscene about the Gates charity work in the US, but in Old Europe it would be regarded as noveaux rich. You wait until you die here before you let your charity foundation go public. That said, charity work - doesn't anything in this world? - has become more Americanized in Germany too in recent years.
Do I work pro bono? Some, but certainly not as much as I could. Without eishing to sound arrogant, I can donate money more easily than time. And the money from one billable hour of mine can do more good than if I worked that hour pro bono. Edith and I support Amnesty International, a couple of newspaper subscriptions in a home for the elderly, ad hoc stuff such as this year's Chile earthquake and the Pakistani flood, the usual Christmas stuff. I pay church tax even though I am a card-carrying agnostic and have alienated myself from any belief in a higher being since I was about 10 years old. Church tax in Germany is mandatory unless you opt out. I haven't (to the despair of my tax advisor) because the churches in Germany, when they are not occupied molesting altar boys, support hospitals, kindergartens, orphanages, schools, charitable work etc. Of course I could donate the respective percentage of my income tax to charities directly, but I'm a lazy bum and don't want to be bothered with the burden of the selection. Other than that I shun legal tax reduction schemes (again to the despair of my tax advisor and all those wealth and asset managers at my bank - LOL -, you should see how their faces whiten when you tell them "if this investment brings tax benefits, then that rules it out for me") and pay my 42% German income tax gladly, hoping some good might come out of it, blind welfare state or not. I've had free schooling and a free law degree from the behemoth state, I'm ok with giving something back, even if the Autobahns are not free, they tend to be clogged!
Uwe