Excuse me? Wow, what a low opinion you have of those who devote themselves to others.
You and I are practical people. While of course I agree that anyone who calls a spade a spade should be compelled to use one, I don't see any harm in acknowledging that religious fervour can replace a decent paycheck and tolerable working hours, and that religious fervour is much more common among conservatives than liberals.
It ends up much more expensive when you replace the nursing staff of a nunnery-hospital with non-believers who expect to be adequately paid, as has been experienced in a number of charity hospitals around the world.
I highly doubt this - I might buy it if the IRS relied on volunteer tax collectors, & all those people behind the counter at the DMV picking their noses were not on the clock, but you're truly naive beyond words if you think government bureaucracies are more efficient than charitable organizations.
Well, think of the bureaucratic manpower requirements. Depending on the money they handle a charity will need a part/full time accountant, a part/full time fundraiser, a CEO and an office manager. The CEO could probably handle fundraising as well if it's a very small charity.
These staff could support anywhere up to around 20 staff, depending on how effective the fundraiser is and how well-organised the accountant and the office manager are.
But mostly that won't be the case because it's bloody hard to get cash out of people for charitable purposes, so those staffers will probably work horrible hours for fairly ordinary pay and they'll support much fewer staff because there just isn't the money to go around.
Big, shiny charities will attract more money but in general they'll be running operations overseas because people are more willing to be charitable to foreign bums than bums they see every day.
Back to our small charity example, now let's extend out those charities so there are enough of them to provide universal healthcare to the extent of, say, the NHS in the UK. Every small doctor's office/charity will have the same core staff, making for an immensely inefficient bureaucracy plagued by wholly unnecessary duplication.
Of course Draginol isn't proposing a private charity NHS, but that's the main reason I see charities as inefficient. There's just so many of them covering the same territory and they rarely take advantage of cost rationalisation through amalgamation, so each is much more inefficient than it needs to be.
80 to 90% of what you donate to a charity goes into the charities pocket not to help those they say they are going to help. i think it is only 60% for what government does with the money.
Come back to me with the actual figures and I'll believe you. But really if government is inefficient the people have no-one but themselves to blame. What have you done to make your government more accountable? If you haven't done anything, then you don't know how efficient it can be, so that's really a strawman argument.
