Giving a dollar to a guy on the street puts a dollar in a man's pocket. Paying a dollar to taxes puts a dollar in "The Man's" pocket.

We should not have to rely on individuals' generosity to look after those in need. We should tax the rich instead.

I looked at this opinion not necessarily in terms of how social security is currently employed within society but rather its potential to be used in a more efficient way to help the genuinely disadvantaged, which I believe is superior to charity. We can assess what is 'better' according to several different factors: what is more ethical, more efficient, helps the most people etc. Yet, if implemented properly, social security has the potential to succeed charity in all of these areas.

First and foremost, charity relies on the generosity of the general public. This already presents a problem in that it can be argued the public have no obligation to give to charity, legal, moral or otherwise, as well as the majority of individuals having a lack of disposable income which they are able to donate to those in need. This combination means charity does not often have the highest yield and to rely on it in often life-threatening circumstances can be disasterous. Data from popular crowdfunding site GoFundMe showed that in 2018 over a quarter of its campaigns were for medical bills. seeking a collective total of nearly $10.3 billion yet raising not even a third of the amount.

I also believe that it is a harmful rhetoric to encourage the idea that the average working-class individual is responsible for donating money in order to solve issues which are frequently caused or at the very least contributed to by the upper class, government and/or big corporations.

Large corporations also abuse charity donation to avoid paying tax, and often donate to fake charities which actually invest back into their own company. This is another issue with charity which should be considered.

I am a firm believer that social security should be paid for by tax increases to the rich and corporations, and invested in free or at least affordable healthcare, childcare, higher minimum wage and social security payments. This is the most ethical solution to reduce economic inequalities and help the genuinely disadvantaged. It is also extremely efficient. Biden announced a plan to raise $1.5 trillion by taxing those earning over $400,000 per year. A similar plan can, and should, be implemented in the UK or most nations.

Charitable support, combined with social security is the best way to help the genuinely disadvantaged

• By suggesting charities are better than social security, it suggests that governments will be absolved of their responsibility to their citizens, which should not be the case. More often these problems do result from economic hardship and government mis-handlings which aren’t the fault of charitable organisations.

• Furthermore, charities alongside social security support would be the ideal way to help, because both are often insufficient on their own. For instance, Universal Credit payments in the UK are £411 a month if you are a single adult over the age of 25, £344 if you're under the age of 25. Rents, bills and food often cost more than this a month, so an ideal combination of the two would help massively.

• Charities are often less biased and don’t have political agendas, their objective is to help people that need it the most.

• Despite this, they are also bound by budgetary restraints so it may be harder to help those that need it. Taxpayers will continue to pay taxes to governments who will provide state assistance

• Charities tend not to change their policies (and consequently their budgets) according to whoever is leading them

What is a better utopia? People taxed at risk of prison to pay for the disadvantaged (as well as all the bureaucrats) or people generously donating to their fellow man to make sure everyone gets by?
Now obviously the second could be argued to be harder to achieve but I can't see how anyone could actually believe the first way is a better world to live in.