Have you ever wondered why targeted social assistance, the interpersonal charity, almost does not work in the Czech Republic - and in the whole of the Western world in general? I did, and I came up with an interesting idea - monopolies are really bad everywhere…
In the current situation, social services are mainly provided by the state. It takes from you a "social tax" (social insurance), which it then redistributes to the "needy" in the form of various benefits and benefits.
The whole redistribution is something like this - you pay tax on your salary. Send your tax anonymously to the state account. An unknown official will redistribute the money of people unknown to him (you) to other people unknown to you (and you). Completely unaddressed, anonymously, impersonally. This official shall distribute this money efficiently and as it should be when isn't it his money or money for him? When he doesn't know the donor or the recipient?
After all, the official doesn't care what happens to the money that has been collected from all of us!
charity works differently. You usually donate money in person to someone, someone. The person also redistributes the money, but in a completely different way than the clerk.
First, the charity representative knows you, both the donor and the recipient of the charity. It's about personal gift. The representative of the charity feels responsible, because it is money that is not his for someone else, but it is money that is a person he knows personally for a person he usually also knows personally.
Secondly, morality works here. Charity is a socially and morally highly valued activity. It is not for nothing that celebrities and companies boast of their donations to charity - it increases their "social score". People and companies want to invest in charity, it's in their interest.
However, morality and social credit do not only work for donors, but also for the charity's intermediaries themselves - being a person who works in a charity is highly valued socially. If you work (or otherwise actively engage) in a charity, you are the one who cares for those who have not been given so much happiness, helping those who need it.
Imagine social evaluation (social credit) as a pyramid. The higher you are in the social evaluation, the less certain base you have below you. Active involvement in charity puts you so high that any hesitation, any mistake will easily throw you out of this pyramid. And once you're discredited in this way, you won't make much money for charity, so your active involvement is counter-productive.
Thirdly, the assistance is addressed. You (at least partially) know who you are helping, you often know what exactly will be from this help, you also have the possibility of feedback, a kind of "looking back". So you know if your money was spent efficiently and if there was any fraud.
If charity is so great, why don't we all joyfully contribute to charity? What prevents us from donating money to charity?
The answer is simple - we don't have much money on our own, because the state takes it from us in the form of taxes - in this case in the form of a social tax. At the same time, it justifies our charitable passivity - "after all, I already pay for social benefits for the state, what to contribute to charity."
The state has a completely certain position on social benefits - everyone must pay a social tax to the state, the state is monopolistic in this. No one can "terminate the treaty" to the state and donate their money to charity, so it is not the explicit interest of the state to work effectively in this area. Why would he do that when he has no competition?
The state and its social apparatus is one great charity. It's such a big charity with a terrible - state - structure. If the state could be "terminated", the state would probably lose the vast majority of donors due to its inefficiency and "bad work". The fault of the state social system is its centralization, size and complexity.
Why not reduce the amount of social benefits to the smallest possible number - preferably to one? Why not simplify the provision of benefits? Why not reduce the complexity of managing the social system? Why not decentralize the social system? Why not increase the powers of the regions?
The state social system destroys charity. A charity that is much more effective in social assistance and works much better. Do we want a social system at all?