Why not make state and federal social welfare relationships one-on-one instead of collective?

Are you seriously wondering? Do you want a serious answer? About how we would need collection enforcers, and if we didn’t have the IRS to do that, we’d probably have much higher administrative costs? And what about matching one person with the right tax level to another with the right need level? More administrative complexity.

I really don’t understand what is behind this question. What is the point of having a personal relationship with your donee? And is that valuable enough to raise the cost of providing benefits?

I think charity is much easier when the person who benefits is known rather than some kind of anonymous person, and to that degree, I can see some benefit to your proposal. I’m not sure, however, that your way is the way to go about it. I certainly don’t think it would justify the cost.

Two words: administrative nightmare.

1. Privacy violation.

2. Increases judgment by givers.

3. It is not one-on-one. The giver’s money goes into the general tax fund. It could be being used for infrastructure repair or something else.

“You often say, “I would give, but only to the deserving.”
The trees in your orchard say not so, nor the flocks in your pasture.
...Surely he who is worthy to receive his days and his nights, is worthy of all else from you.
And he who has deserved to drink from the ocean of life deserves to fill his cup from your little stream.
...And who are you that men should rend their bosom and unveil their pride, that you may see their worth naked and their pride unabashed?
See first that you yourself deserve to be a giver, and an instrument of giving.
For in truth it is life that gives unto life while you, who deem yourself a giver, are but a witness.
Gibran, K.

“Half of what I say is meaningless…”
Gibran, K

Talk about a bureaucracy, just imagine that if this applied to all taxpayers. We would have required visits with road crews, military bases, border patrols, the CIA, waste treatment plants, etc. We would not have enough time to earn the money that would be taxed and become welfare recipients instead then have to visit all the people that paid my unemployment check. That would prevent me from finding another job.

This is why we have government and a money system so that we don’t have to deal with all of that individually or be involved in a barter system. I think that is where the libertarians loose creditability. Economic systems that work well in a small town or desert island do not translate to a country that stretches 3000 miles.

The average individual would not have enough money to give in one pop like that. Everyone gives a little which amounts to a lot, in the end.