Welfare distorts behavior, makes one less personally responsible and reduces the role of private charity. This principle applies to corporate welfare.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
When we give a subsidy, the benefits to the public ought to exceed the benefits to the company. When it doesn't, that's our definition of corporate welfare.
Corporate welfare isn't necessarily a bad thing.
Much corporate giving is charitable in nature rather than philanthropic.
People from both political parties have long recognized that welfare without work creates negative incentives that lead to permanent poverty. It robs people of self-esteem.
Strangely, charity sometimes gets dismissed, as if it is ineffective, inappropriate or even somehow demeaning to the recipient. 'This isn't charity,' some donors take pains to claim, 'This is an investment.' Let us recognize charity for what it is at heart: a noble enterprise aimed at bettering the human condition.
That's why charity work is very selfish at the same time, because it makes you feel good.
I don't think value to the customer is achieved at the expense of employees' welfare.
Welfare's purpose should be to eliminate, as far as possible, the need for its own existence.
The welfare state creates its own victim/client constituency. By making individuals free and independent, we reduce the need for 'charity' to those truly needy citizens what we can certainly afford to help through real charity.
The real purpose of welfare is to get rid of poor people entirely. Everybody knows welfare has bad effects; that's the point.