Home
/
RELIGION & LIBERTY ONLINE
/
Can private charity replace the social safety net?
Can private charity replace the social safety net?
Dec 25, 2025 3:28 AM

After Black Friday, Small Business Saturday, and Cyber es Giving Tuesday. The Tuesday following Thanksgiving has e the unofficial launch of the charitable season, when many people around the globe focus on their holiday and end-of-year giving.

The outpouring of generosity during the giving season raises the question of why all charity can’t be funded privately. Do we even need agovernment social safety net anymore?

Before we can answer that question we must first determine the replacement cost of the safety net. What percent of federal budget goes to programs that provide aid (other than health insurance or Social Security benefits) to individuals and families facing hardship? Forty percent? Thirty percent? Twenty percent?

The actual answer is9 percent, or $366 billion.

Could the amount of money donated to private charities cover the substitution cost for the social safety net? The short answer is: it’s not even close. As Arthur C. Brooks explains,

It would be wonderful if America could solve all problems of poverty and need through private charity. We can and should give even more, and conservatives must continue to lead by example. But even in this remarkably charitable country—where voluntary giving alone exceeds the total GDP of nations such as Israel and Chile—private donations cannot guarantee anywhere near the level of assistance that vast majorities of Americans across the political spectrum believe is our moral duty.

Consider the present total that Americans give annually to human-service organizations that assist the vulnerable. es to about $40 billion, according to Giving USA. Now suppose that we could spread that sum across the 48 million Americans receiving food assistance, with zero overhead plete effectiveness. It e to just $847 per person per year.

Or take the incredible donation levels that followed Hurricane Katrina in 2011. The outpouring of contributions exceeded $3 billion, a record-setting figure that topped even the response to the attacks of September 11, 2001. But even this historic episode raised enough to offset only 3 percent of the costs the storm imposed on the devastated areas of Louisiana and Mississippi. Voluntary charity simply cannot get the job done on its own.

In 2017, an estimated $274 million was raised online in the U.S. during the sixth annualGiving Tuesday. To cover just the cost of the safety net provided by the federal government ($366 billion) we’d need to raise 3.5 times more than was donated on Giving Tuesday every single day throughout the entire year.

The unfortunate reality is that Americans donate to private charity less than 10 percent of the amount provided by the government’s social safety net. But let’s assume that state-based welfare is rife with fraud and abuse and that after reforms we could cut the amount spent in half. Even then private charity would only cover 20 percent of the original amount needed.

Some people might argue that charity would be funded if thegovernment wasn’t already taking the money from citizens. But last year Americans were given a tax cut equal to about $550 billion a year. That’s more than enough to pay for the safety net ($366 billion) and still have half a billion dollars in leftover tax cuts for every man, woman, and child in America. Yet we are not expected to see $366 billion in directed charitable giving to alleviating poverty.

There are a lot of conservatives (including me) who think our neighbors in need would be better off if most or all of the safety net was funded by charity. But the sobering reality is that we have a long, long way to go before that is even in the realm of possibility. Americans only currently give bined total of $390 billion a year—and that’s for every form of charity (churches, education, non-profits, animal shelters, arts programs, etc.).

If we are going to convince our fellow Americans that government should get out of the welfare business, we need to figure out a way to close the charity gap and show the private sector truly can take care of the poor and needy.

Comments
Welcome to mreligion comments! Please keep conversations courteous and on-topic. To fosterproductive and respectful conversations, you may see comments from our Community Managers.
Sign up to post
Sort by
Show More Comments
RELIGION & LIBERTY ONLINE
Pro-Growth Environmentalism?
This article at the WSJ reviews a book that purports to be about progressive environmentalism. Doomsday is out. Nobody cares. People need material well-being before they are interested in environmentalism at all. Messrs. Nordhaus and Shellenberger want "an explicitly pro-growth agenda," on the theory that investment, innovation and imagination may ultimately do more to improve the environment than punitive regulation and finger-wagging rhetoric. To stabilize atmospheric carbon levels will take more–much more–than regulation; it will require "unleashing human power, creating...
Pope Benedict’s Second Encyclical Is Out
It’s called Spe Salvi, or “In hope we were saved”, and was released this morning, the Feast of St. Andrew the Apostle. The title is taken from St. Paul’s letter to the Romans 8:24; the theme is, of course, Christian hope. This second encyclical follows Deus Caritas Est, Pope Benedict XVI’s reflections on Christian charity, which was released in January 2006. You can find the English version of Spe Salvi here. I’ve only had time for one read, not nearly...
Movie Review: Beowulf
When I first heard that the epic tale of Beowulf was being made into a feature-length film, I was excited. Ever since I had first seen the live-action version of The Fellowship of the Ring from Peter Jackson, I had thought that a similar project could do a wonderful job with the Beowulf epic. And then when I learned that the Beowulf film was going to be done entirely puter-generated images (CGI), I was disappointed. Frankly I lost interest in...
Global Warming Consensus Watch – The Canonical List of Global Warming-Caused Crises
It has been noted in the past, both in previous PowerBlog posts and elsewhere in the blogosphere, that climate change alarmists are wont to attribute virtually any anomaly in the weather (or, frankly, in any other area of human existence) to global warming. It’s not hard to find examples of this phenomenon, but it is quite impressive to find an individual who has made an effort to catalog all of the examples on a single web page in one giant...
Spilling the Wrong Beans
Rev. Robert Sirico, president of the Acton Institute, has an article in today’s Detroit News on the recent conviction of Rev. Christian von Wernich, a Catholic priest sentenced to life in prison for his role in supporting the totalitarian regime during Argentina’s National Reorganization Process. Rev. von Wernich, a police chaplain, was accused of sharing the conversations he received with prisoners in the confessional with the police who then used them as evidence against those prisoners and in making further...
Follow-up on Stem Cells
In my Acton Commentary this week, I argued against government funding for stem cell research. The developments that served as my springboard have unsurprisingly prompted a lot of other reflections from various quarters as well. A sampling: Joseph Bottum on politics, religion, and stem cells. Fr. Thomas Berg on the reaction of the munity. Malcolm Ritter on obstacles remaining in the path toward medically useful applications. ...
A ‘Green’ Christmas Tree
Many of us have yet to finalize plans for our Christmas decorating this year. If you haven’t yet decided what kind of tree to put up, consider the truly environmentally-friendly choice: cutting down a live tree. While that might sound counter-intuitive at first blush, the fact is that the alignment of consumer demand for live bines with the environmental interest in growing them to create a powerful alliance. “Buying a real Christmas tree is the next ‘green decision’ the public...
Chimeras, Personhood, and Ultimate Capacities
In stating his opposition to a proposed ban on the creation of human-animal hybrids, or chimeras (the Human-Animal Hybrid Prohibition Act of 2007), Wired blogger Brandon Keim writes, “People — and, for that matter, animals — can’t be reduced to a few discrete biological parts. An embryo is not a person. Strands of DNA do not contain our souls.” I’m not sure that human eggs and sperm prised of souls in some sense, or at least aren’t made up of...
More than Just a Debate about Cells
Recently the Pontifical Athenaeum Regina Apostolorum, one of the many Catholic universities in Rome, drew together church leaders and scientists from around the globe to discuss the nitty-gritty of embryology in a three day conference on bioethics, “Ontogeny and Human Life.” The presentations ranged from juridical and biomedical topics to the philosophical and theological aspects of developing persons. (A conference program is available in PDF form here.) I was unable to attend all of the sessions, but some of the...
Family Friendly Cities
Joel Kotkin explains that the fastest growing cities are not the ones that cater to singles, but those that cater to families. Read it all here. Cross-posted at my blog. ...
Related Classification
Copyright 2023-2025 - www.mreligion.com All Rights Reserved