> What are my tax dollars for if not ensuring my neighbors don't freeze to death?

If you really feel that way, why not offer to pay their electric bills personally?

Because that would be a tax on empathy. We shouldn't be taxing socially positive traits like empathy, but instead taxing negative traits like greed. In lieu of a moral balance for weighing souls, I'll accept a tax on accumulated wealth instead.

I agree with the sibling comment, but there's also a practical reason: I don't want to have to track down everyone that needs assistance and make a personal decision about who needs what. It's much more efficient to have a tax collector and bureaucracy.

For the voluntary vs involuntary part of taxes and charity, that's a moral/ethical philosophical argument that people have been debating for thousands of years. I don't expect to convince anyone here, but I think my view is pretty clear.

But that sounds like a problem with the welfare system. People should have enough money to pay for power and gas. I don't see the use in mixing up utilities and welfare.

Don't get angry at the power company, get angry at the government.

The company in this case is owned by the government so it's all the same thing.

The actual logistics would change if it weren't, I agree.

Yes.

But the power company (be it government owned or private) is at a "commanding height". It is almost impossible to exist without their service so they have very large social responsibilities. Far larger than the responsibility to their shareholders.