>>19428
Exactly. The US may be at the bottom of that graph but it is the highest producer of net wealth in the world. We could argue all day about whether charity for the poor should be voluntary or mandatory, or whether we even have an obligation to them, but this is /liberty/ and I think it's going to be a pretty one-sided debate. Of course, the whole premise of the chart is that if you take everyone's income and give it to the poor, they'll stop being poor. Well no shit. If I did the same but gave it to the rich instead, I could complain about government spending increasing the inequality of wealth.
There's plenty wrong with this chart, too.
There's no sources to be found anywhere, so it could be completely made up. I doubt it is but you never know.
Consider that the bottom axis is welfare spending on young people as a percentage of GDP so of course it's going to be smaller. If you produce a fuckton of wealth and skim less off the top to welfare spending, you can still have an adequate amount of cash in your welfare system.
"Total percentage of poverty reduced" is such a strange metric that I don't even know where to start. How do you even measure that? How many years does this account for? Where is the poverty line, and is it the same for all countries involved?
And, most of all, the samples. The only countries included are western Europe and Canada and the US. Take out the last two and you have a better representative population, as the circumstances in North America are unique. If not for the US as an outlier, the fit would be much closer to horizontal, which has a completely different conclusion: Government spending reaches a point of near-zero marginal return. Hell, even with the present data I think you'd reach that outcome fitting it with a second-degree polynomial instead of linear, first-degree fit.
Where is the data for other countries? Why only these countries?