Cookies on this website

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you click 'Accept all cookies' we'll assume that you are happy to receive all cookies and you won't see this message again. If you click 'Reject all non-essential cookies' only necessary cookies providing core functionality such as security, network management, and accessibility will be enabled. Click 'Find out more' for information on how to change your cookie settings.

This paper looks at moral justifications for funding welfare benefits through general taxation rather than seeking to support it through charitable giving. That is, the parties to the debate are assumed to accept the moral imperative to support the destitute, and the political question is whether there is any requirement to do so through taxation. The chapter explores parallels between begging and the raising of charitable donations, highlighting not only the costs of begging on supplicants, but those that fall as well on the would-be donors. In the light of this, the chapter offers a justification for using taxation as a preferred way of raising resources for the provision of welfare benefits which has echoes of, but contrasts with, a famous proposal by Thomas Nagel.

More information

Type

Chapter

Publisher

Oxford University Press

Publication Date

2018-07-26T00:00:00+00:00

Keywords

taxation, charity, needs, reasonable rejection, Robert Nozick, TM Scanlon, Thomas Nagel