Charity would be providing a place for the needy to stay. Redistribution of wealth provides government housing. Charity provides a food line for the poor. Redistribution of wealth provides hundreds of dollars in food stamps. Charity is usually unpleasant yet effective in taking care of the poor. The poor still wish to get out of poverty. Redistribution tries to provide a poor person what everyone else has and makes it as comfortable as possible for those that participate. Most become complacent and no longer try to better themselves. Persons receiving charity are usually grateful for the shelter and food they receive. Those receiving redistribution feel entitled and usually are unhappy and complain it is not enough.
Charity is to help those that are needy and help them get on their own two feet. Redistribution of wealth is taking from someone to give to someone else. Redistribution will never be a good thing as it creates spoiled individuals that feel just being an American entitles them to what they believe is theirs.
Okay, so I give you $10 to buy food, that is charity? I will agree with that.
How about I take $10 away from Harry and give it to you for food. Is that charity?
But if I subsidize your housing with $10 so that you won't have to pay so much for rent, that is not charity? It is now redistribution o wealth?
Or more accurately, I take $10 of Harry's money and use it to subsidize your housing so that you don't have to pay so much for rent and that is not charity? It is redistribution of wealth?
Perhaps you could make the distinction of the difference to me (or Harry) whether you call it charity or redistribution of wealth.
Last edited: