Does Charity Cause More Harm Than Good?

[SirFrugal]

Maybe a woman was young and dumb and popped out a kid with a non-supportive jobless loser...ok, she made a mistake...I have no problem seeing her get a little help as long as she is trying to improve herself as well during that time.

The caveat made me laugh.  And if she doesn't dance for you and jump through your hoops?  Ehhh, * her, let her and the kids starve.

That's to get "a little help."

Heh. [/quote]

Meanwhile working people jump through hoops to keep their jobs every day and that is perfectly acceptable, right?  Jump through hoops to earn your way in life, or do nothing and get no strings attached assistance...that's a great design.

It's sad that you view them as mistakes. Maybe if you met and spent time with some, you'd have more empathy for them.

Most people are not gaming the system as you describe.

They're struggling. Their life is tough. They work multiple jobs, are barely getting by, often an emergency or medical issue puts them into debt that takes years to work out of.  Yes, they sometimes have some things like a cell phone, or TV. No, I don't think they should have bare walls while receiving some food stamps or housing assistance.

I wouldn't trade places with them.  I feel for them.

If it's so great and easy, shut up and go do it. Milk it for what it's worth. But it isn't.

I already told you, when I'm going to have kids I plan on it.  Why get married and live off just my income when we can play the game and live off my income + her government assistance.  This is the only way most families can afford a stay at home parent these days.  Keep denying reality as marriage rates are at all time lows and the number of people on government assistance programs are at all time highs, and those are two facts you can't deny.

[mm1970]

My wife and I have one child, and we gladly take the tax deduction the U.S. government offers us every year, but if we, instead, had to pay a little more in taxes, that would be fine with me, and it wouldn't have affected our decision to have children. To me, the current tax incentives to have more kids are crazy. It should be the opposite. The more kids you have, the more taxes you should pay. People would still have kids, for sure, but maybe after the second kid or so, they might think twice before having kid number 3 or 4 or 5 or 6, if they knew that it was going to cost them more and more money in taxes each year.

All the people I know with 3+ children under 18 are on assistance programs.  Every single one of them.  Middle class people aren't popping kids out to save money in taxes...its the lower class people that do it because they aren't paying for them anyhow, so who cares.  That's whats fucked up with the system.  You get a working couple making 80k a year who has two kids because its all the can afford, while a "single mom"(aka Sam's girl who is single on paper but always seems to have a live in boyfriend) who works part time sometimes pops out 5 and gets a raise for each one.  I'm not against people having kids but it should be the other way around...the working folk should be the ones who can afford the bigger families...not the people leeching off said working folk.

If as a society we must reward people for having kids, we should be rewarding the working self sufficient people who do it far more than the leeches.

Let me do my math:
Family 1, 3 kids, no public assistance
Family 2, 3 kids, no public assistance
Family 3, 4 kids, MediCal (married family)
Family 4, 4 kids, MediCal (married family)
Family 5, 3 kids, no public assistance
Family 6, 3 kids, no public assistance
Family 7, 3 kids, no public assistance
Family 8, 3 kids, used to be on food stamps, despite having a parent who retired from the military (out of a job for 1.5 years during the downturn)
Family 9, 3 kids, no public assistance
Family 10, 3 kids, no public assistance

That's just a summary of what's in my head and a quick perusal of FB.
So that's 2 or 3 out of 10.  20-30%

[mm1970]

My mom had a coworker...same thing...2 little girls and she rented a house with her mother.  Not a dime in child support, and she was on all kinds of programs as well.  She got knocked up with baby number 3 from a different guy...still no child support...and she could care less...it was just like oh cool, another kid.  The guy lived with her as well...just not on paper.  These are what the vast majority of welfare moms I know are like.

One of my brothers actually works for the state Welfare Department. He really loves his job and believes strongly that all of the people we're discussing in this thread deserve help. My brother admits that there are abuses, but he makes strong arguments that corporate welfare dwarfs the amount of money going to actual human beings. He's pretty convincing if you talk with him about it.

Where my brother and I diverge and I draw the line is when he starts talking about how (I'm not making this up :) Welfare should pay for everyone who needs one and can't afford one to buy, register, insure, maintain and even put fuel into a car. He says things like, "Well how do you expect them to go out and get jobs if they don't have a vehicle?" Of course, I tell him they should get off their fat asses and walk to the bus stop and use their free, taxpayer-provided public transportation passes to get to their jobs. And he's like, "Oh, but sometimes maybe it's raining or cold, and you can't really expect them to go outside in bad weather." :) I love my brother, but sometimes we disagree on things like that.

The reason I brought up my brother, though, was that he has told me that most of his "single mom clients" have live in boyfriends who provide them with money. This seems to support SF's claim in the quote above in bold. If my brother admits to that, I'm pretty sure it must be true. On the other hand, my brother also says that the support the single moms get from their live in boyfriends in usually pretty sporadic, if at all. The type of guys living with the single Welfare moms have a bad habit of taking frequent sabbaticals in the county jail or state prison system. Usually after they get back out of jail, my brother's client becomes pregnant again shortly thereafter.

I have occasion to meet a fair number of people on various kinds of assistance.

At my last job, it was the other way around.  I worked with a woman who had Section 8 housing and 2 teenaged daughters.  She worked 2 jobs - one full time (with me) and one at a department store nights/ weekends.  She had a live-in boyfriend who worked "under the table" picking up dead bodies.  Since he'd been in jail, he couldn't find an official job doing anything else.  But he wasn't technically allowed to live with her either.

I also know a family with 3 kids where the parents weren't married, so the kids got medical coverage based on the single mom's income.  They were not living high on the hog, the dad wasn't making much money either.  I'm not a fan of the system and how it calculates need based on marriage - I think it's outdated.  If you de-couple things like health insurance from employment and marriage, I think it simplify things.

Most people I know on assistance of some kind, like medical insurance assistance, are hard working people who need it.  They don't make much money, they don't get employer health insurance, they have dealt with layoffs.

[mm1970]

My point was that since SNAP benefits seem to be readily available and more than adequate to feed people, I don't see food banks as being that essential. It may be, though, that there are more people than I realize who fall between the cracks and somehow don't qualify for SNAP benefits but also don't make enough at their jobs to afford to buy enough good, healthy food for their families, but like I said I don't know any of those people.

I wish I could remember where I read it, but a lot of people fall through the SNAP cracks.  It depends on the state, etc.  My college friend was on SNAP with her 3 kids and spouse for about a year, and they all lost weight, dangerously so for the children.  Mostly single males have a hard time being eligible for SNAP.

It's highly location dependent.

[Shane]

I have occasion to meet a fair number of people on various kinds of assistance.

At my last job, it was the other way around.  I worked with a woman who had Section 8 housing and 2 teenaged daughters.  She worked 2 jobs - one full time (with me) and one at a department store nights/ weekends.  She had a live-in boyfriend who worked "under the table" picking up dead bodies.  Since he'd been in jail, he couldn't find an official job doing anything else.  But he wasn't technically allowed to live with her either.

I also know a family with 3 kids where the parents weren't married, so the kids got medical coverage based on the single mom's income.  They were not living high on the hog, the dad wasn't making much money either.  I'm not a fan of the system and how it calculates need based on marriage - I think it's outdated.  If you de-couple things like health insurance from employment and marriage, I think it simplify things.

Most people I know on assistance of some kind, like medical insurance assistance, are hard working people who need it.  They don't make much money, they don't get employer health insurance, they have dealt with layoffs.

I agree that medical insurance shouldn't be considered "assistance," anymore than police protection, fire protection or waste removal. Anyone who lives in our country should be entitled to medical AND dental care, free of charge. There's no reason we couldn't provide this for everyone at a much, much lower price tag than our current system which doesn't insure everyone and we're paying >18% of our GDP to maintain. Somehow, just about every other modern, industrialized, rich country in the world can afford to provide health care for close to 100% of their citizens for far less than the U.S. spends to only provide care to people who can afford to pay for it.

[MisterTwoForty]

There are good and bad ways to do charity with money.  I prefer to donate time, but also believe that giving money is principal as well.

I prefer to find very specific ways to give money (i.e. christmas gifts and meal to family in need) rather than just donating to XYZ charity.

I also feel like the loud voice for some, overshadow the soft cries of many.  We've all had times of genuine need and its important to find those in need, but too proud to ask for help. 

[Kris]

All the people I know with 3+ children under 18 are on assistance programs.

None of the people I know wirh 3+ children under 18 are on assistance programs.  Literally not a single one,

[gaja]

1. The cracks are narrower in a welfare state as Norway, and we have good, publicly available stats that show why people need to use the welfare system. Without a diagnosis you don't get help, so people either work or get diagnosed. Mental disease is a major one. And most people with mental issues hesitate to tell strangers about this. I don't know "Sam", but I know people with severe anxiety problems who can do very good work in periods, and then suddenly disappear for a week.

2. if you try to fool the system, you will succeed. But it it kind of like a child trying to stuff all the garbage and toys under the bed instead of cleaning their room. It might save them from working, but they are destroying valuable stuff. I try to live after "Contribute what you can, receive what you need", and teach my kids the same.

[justajane]

I agree that nobody is purposely having more kids just to get the tax credit. It seems to me, though, that the effect might be incremental. If couples paid more taxes for each child they had, at some point they might think twice before having another child if, say, they were just kinda scraping by financially, the idea of paying more taxes might at some point affect some people's decision making regarding children. Maybe not, but it seems worth a try anyway. The extra tax money could be put towards foreign aid to educate women in 3rd World countries, so that they'd have fewer children... :)

Hold on. You think we should do away with the child tax credit and instead create a system in which you are taxed more for each successive child? That's a pretty terrible idea. That would create an instant negative birth rate.

[Gin1984]

Nobody ever said that.  We'd have my salary + her benefits vs just my salary if we married.  Considering how the number of unmarried adults in America is higher than ever I highly doubt I'm the only one that has figured this out.

The reason I brought up my brother, though, was that he has told me that most of his "single mom clients" have live in boyfriends who provide them with money. This seems to support SF's claim in the quote above in bold. If my brother admits to that, I'm pretty sure it must be true. On the other hand, my brother also says that the support the single moms get from their live in boyfriends in usually pretty sporadic, if at all. The type of guys living with the single Welfare moms have a bad habit of taking frequent sabbaticals in the county jail or state prison system. Usually after they get back out of jail, my brother's client becomes pregnant again shortly thereafter.

And this is why I'm saying our system is failing.  Maybe a woman was young and dumb and popped out a kid with a non-supportive jobless loser...ok, she made a mistake...I have no problem seeing her get a little help as long as she is trying to improve herself as well during that time.  However, when she then proceeds to pop out babies 2, 3, and 4 with the same or similar guys, and at no point neither her nor any of the baby daddies are held at all accountable or responsible for popping out these kids, yet society has to keep paying more and more for her mistakes.  Why does society not have any power in telling these people listen, if you want help, NO MORE KIDS until you get your act together, yet these people have infinite ability to reach a little deeper into everyone else's pockets every time they crap out another kid.  Everyone knows sex makes a baby...its not like you can't go to your local planned parenthood, charities, health clinics...whatever is in your area, and get free condoms, these people have no excuse other than they simply don't care, and its because our system enables it.

ROFL, seriously ROFL.  Please tell me you are trolling Reb.  Do you know how many of those "free" clinics have been shut down?  How many planned parenthoods have been targeted by BS laws to force closures.  In some areas yea, you could go down and get birth control but the majority, no way.  And guess what the rates of poverty and of young women and girls having children is higher in the areas without those clinics.  Stopping voting republican, and start supporting planned parenthood if you want these things to decrease.  The solution is simple and it does not include starving children already here.

[Shane]

I agree that nobody is purposely having more kids just to get the tax credit. It seems to me, though, that the effect might be incremental. If couples paid more taxes for each child they had, at some point they might think twice before having another child if, say, they were just kinda scraping by financially, the idea of paying more taxes might at some point affect some people's decision making regarding children. Maybe not, but it seems worth a try anyway. The extra tax money could be put towards foreign aid to educate women in 3rd World countries, so that they'd have fewer children... :)

Hold on. You think we should do away with the child tax credit and instead create a system in which you are taxed more for each successive child? That's a pretty terrible idea. That would create an instant negative birth rate.

Aren't you the one who just said that nobody in the U.S. was having kids just to get the tax breaks? :)

And didn't everyone just agree that educating women in the 3rd World would be a good thing because it would help to lower populations?

If reducing populations in 3rd World countries is a good thing, wouldn't it be even better to do it in the U.S. as well? Especially in the U.S., we use a LOT more resources per capita than people in the 3rd World, so fewer of us would have an even bigger positive impact on the planet than reducing 3rd World populations.

The only way I know of to lower population (besides war or disease) is to create a negative birth rate. How else could we get fewer people?

[Lyssa]

Birth rates are the elephant in the room regarding foreign aid. I don't know of any charity that has set out to specifically help small families, preferably 0-2 children. None. Some (few) promote reproductive freedem and offer contraception to women actively asking for it.

I think there are, via the best route: educating women.

Educated women lead to smaller families.

We don't need to specifically "help smaller families," we need to educate women, which directly leads to smaller families (and a * ton of other benefits as well).

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/graphic-science-female-education-reduces-infant-childhood-deaths/

Women with more education tend to have smaller families, in part because of increased employment opportunities and better knowledge about contraception; fewer children in a family improves the chances that an infant will survive. More education also helps women make better decisions about many health and disease factors such as prenatal care, basic hygiene, nutrition and immunization—which are vital to reducing the leading causes of death in children under five, shown below.

I'm aware and it certainly helps. But why only attack THE major problem indirectly and not even directly mention it as problem in the first place? I suppose the main answers are (a) religion, both of the givers and the receivers of aid and (b) the fact that there is no more effective way to get funding then to show suffering children. The benefit of children not born is much harder to communicate.

I've been to aid organization and asked them directly "What does your organization do about overpopulation? Do you see this as a matter right up there with HIV/Malaria/war/etc" and I got blank stares in response or an explaination how one of their programs also hands out a few condoms. Given the pressing urgency this matter has reached by now that's a sorry state of affairs.

As @ARS has pointed out, it would be inappropriate for us (people posting to this thread who are presumably from the First World) to go in to Third World countries and tell them what to do, so I think the best approach there would be to donate our resources to educating women, as @ARS has suggested. I've read pretty convincing arguments that that strategy has a pretty high ROI.

In the First World we need to stop the idiotic economic incentives we are giving to couples to have children.

I don't think we are going to do much good by incentivicing Japan, Korea, Germany or Italy to have even fewer children. Those countries are way below 2.1 already. Germany is at 1.4 kids per woman.

Overpopulation can only be fought where it is happening. Any country - first world or not - over 2.1 should incentivise small families.

And unconditionally pouring money into highly corrupt systems and/or traditional societies is not "being neutral" but enablling a self-destructive course or the delusions of autocrats.

Egypt and Gaza have a comparable demographic. Gaza has received much more aid per person than Egypt. Guess who is having smaller families? Correct, not Gaza. Egypt is down to 3-4 children per family, Gaza still at around 8. Wealth and education alone does also not do the trick if religion and tradition are left to reign freely over the lifes of people in general and women in particular. For proof you need to look no further than the Gulf States.

And I don't think the issue is impossible to communicate without sounding like "there should be less Africans/Asians because we don't like them!".

Firstly, there are intellectuals in any country doing the math and pointing to the problem. We could support them for a start and let them tell us what should/should not be done. Secondly, there is the example of China. Not examplary regarding the means, but examplery regarding the analysis that let to the one child policy. China did not enact this because the government considered Chinese people inferior. Or because they wanted to do the first world a favour. They simply did the math and realized that in order to get more wealthy they needed to have fewer children. Plain and simple. And they got more wealthy. At the price of all the massive environmental problems that the West went through generations ago (Forgotten today, but very comparable. There was massive dam building, extermination of animals, conflicts with local peasants, cutting down woods and downright poisonous rivers in Europe as well.). Can you imagine the state of China's nature if this course would have been realizable and realized with double or triple the current population?

[justajane]

I agree that nobody is purposely having more kids just to get the tax credit. It seems to me, though, that the effect might be incremental. If couples paid more taxes for each child they had, at some point they might think twice before having another child if, say, they were just kinda scraping by financially, the idea of paying more taxes might at some point affect some people's decision making regarding children. Maybe not, but it seems worth a try anyway. The extra tax money could be put towards foreign aid to educate women in 3rd World countries, so that they'd have fewer children... :)

Hold on. You think we should do away with the child tax credit and instead create a system in which you are taxed more for each successive child? That's a pretty terrible idea. That would create an instant negative birth rate.

Aren't you the one who just said that nobody in the U.S. was having kids just to get the tax breaks? :)

And didn't everyone just agree that educating women in the 3rd World would be a good thing because it would help to lower populations?

If reducing populations in 3rd World countries is a good thing, wouldn't it be even better to do it in the U.S. as well? Especially in the U.S., we use a LOT more resources per capita than people in the 3rd World, so fewer of us would have an even bigger positive impact on the planet than reducing 3rd World populations.

The only way I know of to lower population (besides war or disease) is to create a negative birth rate. How else could we get fewer people?

Shane, a tax credit is a far different thing than a tax liability. You were suggesting the latter, which I don't agree with in the slightest. Usually people are taxed for income, not just for being born. Basically you are saying that children should be taxed for existing, which flies in the face of current ideas about taxation.

In a society, especially historically, a negative birth rate is by and large not a good thing. I suggest you read more about demographics. In the modern world, we have the ability to make up for a negative birth rate domestically through immigration, but historically that wasn't the case, and a declining birth rate has wrought havoc economically in the past. 

Here are some mainstream news sources discussing it:
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/dropping-birth-rates-threaten-global-economic-growth/
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2014-12/16/content_19093408.htm

Overpopulation tends to be a micro-concern, which (of course) can have macro effects. But your across-the-board recommendation doesn't really make sense. A replacement level birth rate is usually considered 2.1, and the US is below that at 1.8. We make up for it with immigration. But, in essence, no, the birth rate in the US does not need to decrease. 

[Shane]

Thanks, JAJ, for the links to the two articles. I read them.

Probably my ideas on taxing people to discourage them from having children in First World countries aren't practical. I don't claim to be an expert on demographics or economics, although both of those subjects are interesting to me and I'd like to learn more.

While I'm pretty sure that I, personally, and probably most of us on this board will benefit financially from continued economic growth and probably you're right that in order to maintain economic growth countries need to at least maintain their populations, preferably grow them, I question whether continued economic growth is sustainable in the long term. Do you think it's possible to continue to grow our economies forever? If not, at what point do we decide that fewer people and a smaller world economy would be better? There has to be some way that we can gradually transition to a world where there are fewer human beings on the planet who consume less stuff. Wouldn't we be richer then? Given that the planet has a finite amount of resources, the fewer people there are, the more there would be to go around, right?

Intuitively, it seems impossible to me that our populations and economies can continue to grow forever. Won't there come a point when we've got too many people and the economy just can't grow any more without destroying the planet? Just in my lifetime, the U.S. population has gone from ~200MM to a little over 300MM people. How can that possibly be sustainable?

While it may seem that the U.S. is a big country with lots of room and the potential to continue to grow its population, Americans use the earth's resources at a much higher rate than people in other countries, so fewer American would have a much bigger impact on the world than fewer Egyptians or Palestinians.

I just read an article from Scientific American about Americans' disproportionate use of the earth's resources. Here are a couple of quotes from the article:

-A child born in the United States will create thirteen times as much ecological damage over the course of his or her lifetime than a child born in Brazil

-the average American will drain as many resources as 35 natives of India and consume 53 times more goods and services than someone from China

-between 1900 and 1989 U.S. population tripled while its use of raw materials grew by a factor of 17.  “With less than 5 percent of world population, the U.S. uses one-third of the world’s paper, a quarter of the world’s oil, 23 percent of the coal, 27 percent of the aluminum, and 19 percent of the copper,” he reports. “Our per capita use of energy, metals, minerals, forest products, fish, grains, meat, and even fresh water dwarfs that of people living in the developing world.

[Gin1984]

Thanks, JAJ, for the links to the two articles. I read them.

Probably my ideas on taxing people to discourage them from having children in First World countries aren't practical. I don't claim to be an expert on demographics or economics, although both of those subjects are interesting to me and I'd like to learn more.

While I'm pretty sure that I, personally, and probably most of us on this board will benefit financially from continued economic growth and probably you're right that in order to maintain economic growth countries need to at least maintain their populations, preferably grow them, I question whether continued economic growth is sustainable in the long term. Do you think it's possible to continue to grow our economies forever? If not, at what point do we decide that fewer people and a smaller world economy would be better? There has to be some way that we can gradually transition to a world where there are fewer human beings on the planet who consume less stuff. Wouldn't we be richer then? Given that the planet has a finite amount of resources, the fewer people there are, the more there would be to go around, right?

Intuitively, it seems impossible to me that our populations and economies can continue to grow forever. Won't there come a point when we've got too many people and the economy just can't grow any more without destroying the planet? Just in my lifetime, the U.S. population has gone from ~200MM to a little over 300MM people. How can that possibly be sustainable?

While it may seem that the U.S. is a big country with lots of room and the potential to continue to grow its population, Americans use the earth's resources at a much higher rate than people in other countries, so fewer American would have a much bigger impact on the world than fewer Egyptians or Palestinians.

I just read an article from Scientific American about Americans' disproportionate use of the earth's resources. Here are a couple of quotes from the article:

-A child born in the United States will create thirteen times as much ecological damage over the course of his or her lifetime than a child born in Brazil

-the average American will drain as many resources as 35 natives of India and consume 53 times more goods and services than someone from China

-between 1900 and 1989 U.S. population tripled while its use of raw materials grew by a factor of 17.  “With less than 5 percent of world population, the U.S. uses one-third of the world’s paper, a quarter of the world’s oil, 23 percent of the coal, 27 percent of the aluminum, and 19 percent of the copper,” he reports. “Our per capita use of energy, metals, minerals, forest products, fish, grains, meat, and even fresh water dwarfs that of people living in the developing world.

Except the majority of those people are immigrants.  U.S. population is just below the replacement level of about 1.9 children per woman. 

[gaja]

Personally, I don't think we can sustain more growth, but we need young people to take care of the older population even if we all live a simpler life. As it said in one of the articles:
"Economists are worried not just because growth is stalling in working-age populations. Their numbers as a share of the total population in many countries is falling. Economists like to see this share of total population rise, because it means more people are earning money, expanding the tax base and paying for schools for the young and pensions and health care for the old."

There is a reason Germany (birth rate 1.39) is so positive towards immigration and refugees. There is a reason the official pension age in Norway shifted from 67 to 70 last year. When more people live to 90 and 100, you need more young people to take care of them. I'm very positive to import those people (accept more refugees, welcome immigrant workers), but there are downsides to that too. You can of course save money and pay for your care, but someone has got to do the job, and they can't all be robots. The EU has funded many projects on the topic of "smart" health care, and how we can keep the aging population healthy enough to take care of them self as long as possible. But in some of the regions where the birth rates are lowest and the young people are moving away, you see already now that there is a lack of caretakers for the older population. Foreign doctors and nurses are paid crazy sums to work in the north of Norway, but they rarely stay for more than a couple of months. You almost have to be born there to survive the dark winter months.

China has laws that makes it mandatory for young people to visit and take care of parents and grandparents. If you are a single child, you will have to take care of two parents and four grandparents. That can be a heavy burden if they all live til past 90.

[TheNick]

Hi everybody.  I ran across an interesting article earlier that made me think of this thread.

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/maine-food-stamp-welfare-reform/2015/12/28/id/707324/

Long story short, Maine placed a requirement on food stamps that any able bodied childless adult on food stamps capable of working must either work part time, participate in a job training program, or volunteer somewhere.

Of the 13,589 people who fit that criteria, all but 1,206 dropped off the program.  A 90% reduction!  Seems to me like Maine had a lot of people scamming the system!  I'd like to give people the benefit of the doubt, but in some cases I do think charity does more harm than good, and Maine found a fantastic way to pick out the needy from the greedy.  If you are truly in need of assistance and can't even find a part time job, is it really that bad that society would expect you to participate in some sort of job training program to better your employment prospects, or to volunteer a little time to help others who may be even more needy than yourself?  Hopefully more states follow in Maine's footsteps!

[Gin1984]

Hi everybody.  I ran across an interesting article earlier that made me think of this thread.

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/maine-food-stamp-welfare-reform/2015/12/28/id/707324/

Long story short, Maine placed a requirement on food stamps that any able bodied childless adult on food stamps capable of working must either work part time, participate in a job training program, or volunteer somewhere.

Of the 13,589 people who fit that criteria, all but 1,206 dropped off the program.  A 90% reduction!  Seems to me like Maine had a lot of people scamming the system!  I'd like to give people the benefit of the doubt, but in some cases I do think charity does more harm than good, and Maine found a fantastic way to pick out the needy from the greedy.  If you are truly in need of assistance and can't even find a part time job, is it really that bad that society would expect you to participate in some sort of job training program to better your employment prospects, or to volunteer a little time to help others who may be even more needy than yourself?  Hopefully more states follow in Maine's footsteps!

My state requires those but allow for trying to find work too.

[MMMaybe]

I grew up in a (somewhat) developing country and currently live in the Philippines. Given the poverty that I see all around me, I think about the role of charity a lot.

Lots of charities are active here, both domestic and foreign. The thing that bothers me the most is that this is a country which has a small minority of people who are richer than God. They live lives of absolute privilege, seemingly unconcerned with the squalor around them. This is true of many other developing countries. There is money. There are resources. But they are firmly held by a small number of people. The rest require assistance from others. How can this be acceptable? Why is the West giving development aid to countries who are so resolutely inequitable?

For myself, given the lack of transparency here and the sheer amount of corruption at all levels, I do not give to charity here. This place has nearly destroyed my faith in humanity, to be honest and I have spent a lot of time in the developing world so it surprises me...

However, I make a point of buying from livelihood projects, where people learn skills (my Christmas ornaments came from one) or from social enterprises. I try to patronise small locally owned businesses.. I've been on the board of a foreign organisation here that has funded fairly major projects for local charities.

I have come to believe that charity without strings of some kind attached (such as the need to go to school, to work or to contribute in-kind such as donating your own time) can sometimes enable people to stay stuck in the poverty trap. It does allow the development of dependency. As such, I target my efforts towards teaching people how to fish, rather than buying them fish.

[accolay]

I too lament the days when we had real poor people. You know, 18th and 19th century poor people. When we had debtors prisons. When K-12 education wasn't a thing and children could work in the mines to contribute to the family. And you could get married in your teens, cause you're probably not going to live very long anyway. When the work week was six days long with 10-14 hour days. Shit like that.

Those were the good old days.

[arebelspy]

I grew up in a (somewhat) developing country and currently live in the Philippines. Given the poverty that I see all around me, I think about the role of charity a lot.

Lots of charities are active here, both domestic and foreign. The thing that bothers me the most is that this is a country which has a small minority of people who are richer than God. They live lives of absolute privilege, seemingly unconcerned with the squalor around them. This is true of many other developing countries. There is money. There are resources. But they are firmly held by a small number of people. The rest require assistance from others. How can this be acceptable? Why is the West giving development aid to countries who are so resolutely inequitable?

Short of taking their resources at gunpoint, I don't see how we can resolve that.

But we can help the rest who aren't part of that minority, and need the help.

[Zamboni]

I too lament the days when we had real poor people. You know, 18th and 19th century poor people. When we had debtors prisons. When K-12 education wasn't a thing and children could work in the mines to contribute to the family. And you could get married in your teens, cause you're probably not going to live very long anyway. When the work week was six days long with 10-14 hour days. Shit like that.

Those were the good old days.

**Snicker** thanks for the laugh!

I agree that the OP's arguments are classic "motivated reasoning." You really want to keep your money, and after all why not? You worked hard to earn it, after all. You don't really want to go out and see what a variety of charities do in any sort of in depth way because you are busy with my job and family and hobbies, so therefore you rationalize it all away with "charities do more harm than good."

You've gotten lots of good advice: find charities who do something you think is right and don't worry about the rest.

Seriously, whenever I read a post like the OP's first post and initial follow ups, it makes me realize nothing more than how little charity work the OP has likely experienced. I grew up in a shitty neighborhood and saw first hand what happened there to most of my friends. Some are in pretty bad shape as adults, and I am grateful my family life was better than theirs and can see how they don't really have it together. I deliver meals and it is shocking to see the conditions where people in my own very affluent country sometimes live. Seriously disabled people. Elderly and very infirm people. Very low IQ people. People with severe facial disfigurements from cancer or some genetic problem. I have cried after some of these experiences, and so has the tough guy I hang out with. Many people can't really do jack shit about their current circumstances. No amount of sitting down with them and saying "Now really you need to get your shit together" is going to change their lot in life. NO ONE and I mean NO ONE will hire most of the people to whom I've taken meals right here in the good old US of A. They are going to need that food day after day, week and week, until they die. Some might look like they are doing okay when they go out in the world (if they even are able to get out, because many cannot.) This is because Goodwill clothing is pretty unworn and cheap around here, and fresh water for washing is also cheap, so people can get clean, but often beyond that they are in very dire straights.

[Lyssa]

I grew up in a (somewhat) developing country and currently live in the Philippines. Given the poverty that I see all around me, I think about the role of charity a lot.

Lots of charities are active here, both domestic and foreign. The thing that bothers me the most is that this is a country which has a small minority of people who are richer than God. They live lives of absolute privilege, seemingly unconcerned with the squalor around them. This is true of many other developing countries. There is money. There are resources. But they are firmly held by a small number of people. The rest require assistance from others. How can this be acceptable? Why is the West giving development aid to countries who are so resolutely inequitable?

Short of taking their resources at gunpoint, I don't see how we can resolve that.

But we can help the rest who aren't part of that minority, and need the help.

I don't remember you as part of the "taxes are theft at gunpoint!" crowd. :-)

Why not condition foreign aid on certain taxes and their enforcement?

This point actually came up in the Greek crisis. When Greece - yet again - blamed the creditors for all that is wrong in Greece one of their points was "you forced us to cut down this and that program and to make everything even worse for the poor!". When the reply was "Actually, we didn't. You could have taxed the rich instead. The only thing you could not do is to continue to spend money you do not collect as taxes" they countered: "But you did not make us to tax the rich! You did not tell us to! You should have!".

When countries are screwed up beyond a certain point, even the most self evident ways to somewhat improve the situation are going to be ignored as long as ignoring them is not going to hurt more than not ignoring them.

[arebelspy]

I grew up in a (somewhat) developing country and currently live in the Philippines. Given the poverty that I see all around me, I think about the role of charity a lot.

Lots of charities are active here, both domestic and foreign. The thing that bothers me the most is that this is a country which has a small minority of people who are richer than God. They live lives of absolute privilege, seemingly unconcerned with the squalor around them. This is true of many other developing countries. There is money. There are resources. But they are firmly held by a small number of people. The rest require assistance from others. How can this be acceptable? Why is the West giving development aid to countries who are so resolutely inequitable?

Short of taking their resources at gunpoint, I don't see how we can resolve that.

But we can help the rest who aren't part of that minority, and need the help.

I don't remember you as part of the "taxes are theft at gunpoint!" crowd. :-)

I'm not.  Taxes are not theft.

I was not talking about taxes, I was talking about literally sending an army over.

We also can't force them to raise taxes, short of gunpoint. 

My point was what to look at what you CAN do.

[MMMaybe]

Why not condition foreign aid on certain taxes and their enforcement?

When countries are screwed up beyond a certain point, even the most self evident ways to somewhat improve the situation are going to be ignored as long as ignoring them is not going to hurt more than not ignoring them.

I agree. We are certainly not helping anyone by ignoring the true reality of the situation. Charity should start at home in some countries and believe me, if you could see the wealth around here, you would question the ease with which the elites ignore their broader role in this society. It would shock you.

Unfortunately they might need to be made to care through taxation as philanthropy is not particularly widespread...

[brooklynguy]

believe me, if you could see the wealth around here, you would question the ease with which the elites ignore their broader role in this society. It would shock you.

Zoom out in your perspective and you'll find society at large no different.  Indeed, your earlier assessment of the state of affairs in your own particular country continues to hold true if you broaden its application to a macro level:

The thing that bothers me the most is that this is a country world which has a small minority of people who are richer than God. They live lives of absolute privilege, seemingly unconcerned with the squalor around them. . .There is money. There are resources. But they are firmly held by a small number of people. The rest require assistance from others. How can this be acceptable?

Everyone posting here should recognize that each of us enjoys an exalted position near the very top of the distribution of wealth and privilege across all of humanity, no matter where we happen to fall within the distribution across our particular subset.  It's easy, and it helps ease our cognitive dissonance, to criticize the moral failings of those who sit even higher than we do in those grossly skewed distributions--those at the absolute tippity-top--and fail to do more than they do to help those at the other end of the spectrum.  The harder task is acknowledging that our own failure to do so is identical in kind, if not in degree, and hopefully striving to do better.

[Landlord2015]

believe me, if you could see the wealth around here, you would question the ease with which the elites ignore their broader role in this society. It would shock you.

Zoom out in your perspective and you'll find society at large no different.  Indeed, your earlier assessment of the state of affairs in your own particular country continues to hold true if you broaden its application to a macro level:

The thing that bothers me the most is that this is a country world which has a small minority of people who are richer than God. They live lives of absolute privilege, seemingly unconcerned with the squalor around them. . .There is money. There are resources. But they are firmly held by a small number of people. The rest require assistance from others. How can this be acceptable?

Everyone posting here should recognize that each of us enjoys an exalted position near the very top of the distribution of wealth and privilege across all of humanity, no matter where we happen to fall within the distribution across our particular subset.  It's easy, and it helps ease our cognitive dissonance, to criticize the moral failings of those who sit even higher than we do in those grossly skewed distributions--those at the absolute tippity-top--and fail to do more than they do to help those at the other end of the spectrum.  The harder task is acknowledging that our own failure to do so is identical in kind, if not in degree, and hopefully striving to do better.

Exalted position compared to Africa? Oh and Shane whos brother worked in  Africa whatever. I don't care not one bit about Africa.

Giving bread in your own country to the poor well that is more noble course in my eyes. First fix problems in your own country like the most poorest. When that is done say good economics(not by any mean saying my country has good economics but example Norway) then you can afford to help more other countries if you really want to do that.

I did see Dragons Den TV series... and one Dragon said what I agree with. He did not want to give to charity, but to start a company in a poor country(somewhere in Asia, but not Africa) and give workplaces in that country and that way indirectly helping the people makes sense. It is not complete slave labor I am talking about I am sure the Dragon(no don't remember which of them said that) meant more like symbiosis.

The Chinese who have lots of money seem to invest in Africa. However the truth is that they want the Africa natural resources more or less that is at least what I have heard. However I don't have any hard facts, but I doubt Chinese invest from goodness of their heart only.

Exalted? I don't know about you, but I am not retired yet and not totally safe no way maybe it feels more safe to donate if you got pension already. Yeah I can always sell an apartment if it goes really bad but I want to retire in wealth(not like average Joe) and no I am not so wealthy as the most wealthy posters here. I am not a millionaire.

This is subjective taste I think at the end of the day if you want to donate then do it otherwise not.

The society should do more work to reduce unemployment and to motivate people to work in my country Finland . I am not so familiar with USA , but I know about student debt crisis and homeless people so I am sure there are people that need help.

[TheNick]

I did see Dragons Den TV series... and one Dragon said what I agree with. He did not want to give to charity, but to start a company in a poor country and give workplaces in that country and that way indirectly helping the people makes sense. It is not complete slave labor I am talking about I am sure the Dragon(no don't remember which of them said that) meant more like symbiosis.

I agree with this concept sir.  I don't mind seeing people who are too incapacitated to work get help, but I live in the states and it seems like the heavier our government becomes in charity the less this happens.  See my above post about Maine for example...they pass a requirement that childless able bodied people on food stamps have to get at least a part time job, volunteer somewhere, or participate in some sort of job training and 90% of the that demographic dropped off the program.  Why were those people ever on it to begin with if they aren't willing to do anything to help themselves or give a little back to the society that is helping them get by...they obviously didn't need the help that bad if they weren't willing to do anything to maintain it.

On the other end of the spectrum we have charities here where the bulk of the money you donate ends up getting eaten up by administrative costs.  Why would I want to donate to those charities when most of my money isn't even going to help anyone, its just going to pay some executive a fat salary?

Its not that I'm against charity or think the concept of charity is bad, its just I heavily question how our government handles welfare programs, and I make sure to research charities before making any donations to them to make sure I'm actually donating where a high % of my donation is actually going to do some good and not just feed a corporate machine.  Personally I prefer local charity work that involves my time over my money...at least I know exactly where my efforts are going and who I'm helping.

[acroy]

True charity is doing the right thing by someone in need.

Not just resource transfer. 'teach a man to fish'.... 'hand up' vs 'handout'.

100% of the folks I know on Snap, Section 8 etc are just plain lazy. They could pull their own weight if they chose. Several of them spend 150-200% of what I do on food.... using 'other peoples money'.
Yes I realize I see a narrow and sheltered segment of the world's population.

[Landlord2015]

I did see Dragons Den TV series... and one Dragon said what I agree with. He did not want to give to charity, but to start a company in a poor country and give workplaces in that country and that way indirectly helping the people makes sense. It is not complete slave labor I am talking about I am sure the Dragon(no don't remember which of them said that) meant more like symbiosis.

I agree with this concept sir.  I don't mind seeing people who are too incapacitated to work get help, but I live in the states and it seems like the heavier our government becomes in charity the less this happens.  See my above post about Maine for example...they pass a requirement that childless able bodied people on food stamps have to get at least a part time job, volunteer somewhere, or participate in some sort of job training and 90% of the that demographic dropped off the program.  Why were those people ever on it to begin with if they aren't willing to do anything to help themselves or give a little back to the society that is helping them get by...they obviously didn't need the help that bad if they weren't willing to do anything to maintain it.

On the other end of the spectrum we have charities here where the bulk of the money you donate ends up getting eaten up by administrative costs.  Why would I want to donate to those charities when most of my money isn't even going to help anyone, its just going to pay some executive a fat salary?

Its not that I'm against charity or think the concept of charity is bad, its just I heavily question how our government handles welfare programs, and I make sure to research charities before making any donations to them to make sure I'm actually donating where a high % of my donation is actually going to do some good and not just feed a corporate machine.  Personally I prefer local charity work that involves my time over my money...at least I know exactly where my efforts are going and who I'm helping.

Your local charity work is noble indeed sir. As I said before it should be voluntary. If you don't want to donate then don't do it.

Administrative costs?
I have solid information about this and this is fact. I refuse to name any specific organisation... but here is it as it goes as I see it.

Yes they have administrative costs every organisation that I have heard of have those more or less. I don't know about USA, but in Finland if you get door to door visiters that ask for donations they have hour wage. Their salary is not great, but it is ok related to the fact you don't need much education for that. These people usually are good people they might even prefer their work since they feel they do work for the good.

Does every door ringing visiter get salary? No for example the religious organisation Jehovas Witness do not get salary. However lets no go offtopic to religion.

There are administrative costs they do exist. However charity organisations also have volunteer workers that do some tasks for free, but they don't do it 37.5 hours/week it is much much less usually if free voluntary worker.

Finally if we take a hospital that is put to a country in need of crisis. I can guarantee that every doctor and nurse is paid full salary indeed! Otherwise they would not get a hospital with staff.

I don't know about USA, but in Finland doctor is like the golden king of profession they don't need to go abroad to get exellent pay and a job.

There are administrative costs yes they exist, but most who donate know that and accept it. Now still it should be voluntary do donate every person decide how they want to do about that, but I tried to explain administrative costs.

[TheNick]

There are administrative costs yes they exist, but most who donate know that and accept it. Now still it should be voluntary do donate every person decide how they want to do about that, but I tried to explain administrative costs.

Oh yeah...I get this...I just mean some charities are going to eat up 70 cents on the dollar in administrative costs while others less than 10 cents on the dollar.  Why donate to the ones that are obviously not efficient with the donations they receive?

[Landlord2015]

There are administrative costs yes they exist, but most who donate know that and accept it. Now still it should be voluntary do donate every person decide how they want to do about that, but I tried to explain administrative costs.

Oh yeah...I get this...I just mean some charities are going to eat up 70 cents on the dollar in administrative costs while others less than 10 cents on the dollar.  Why donate to the ones that are obviously not efficient with the donations they receive?

If you know an organisation that eats 10 cents on a dollar yes it makes more sense to donate to that.

However keep in mind some administrative costs are needed. Charity organisations has also shops that sell stuff that people can buy to help charity. Those who work in a shop get salary. What do all these people who are employed to add to? Yes they need some boss that get good salary no doubt. In addition they need accountants and people who can count salary.

All I am saying that the bigger the organisation and the more international it is then the likely more administrative work are needed. An international organisation need at least ocassionally people who are familiar with law i.e lawyers. They might not employee lawyers fulltime but contact them when needed.

[arebelspy]

True charity is doing the right thing by someone in need.

Not just resource transfer. 'teach a man to fish'.... 'hand up' vs 'handout'.

Sometimes a resource transfer IS the right thing, the thing they need at the moment. 

But yes, overall infrastructure improvement may be better long term than food, short term.  But the person starving today still needs to eat.  No reason, with our abundance, we can't do both.

Oh yeah...I get this...I just mean some charities are going to eat up 70 cents on the dollar in administrative costs while others less than 10 cents on the dollar.  Why donate to the ones that are obviously not efficient with the donations they receive?

Don't.  Donate to the ones that are efficient.

[Landlord2015]

Don't.  Donate to the ones that are efficient.

Yeah but keep in mind you can not compare your local town charity administrative costs to a huge international organisation. Compare huge international organisations to another...

Speaking of fun thing.... I find it funny. I am against donating myself but If I really had to maybe environmental but problem is I am not green party and I am PRO nuclear power. I did like the Avatar(2009) movie message to save the planet.

However there is one green charity organisation who have a bit nasty habit of doing very nasty things... It feels odd IF I would give money to some extreme nature extremists... I mean where an organisation where some real hardcore people exist that think nature goes before humankind. An organisation with hardcore green party members and some of them are willing to do more then talk... so I should donate to these hardcore green activists?

[arebelspy]

Help do whatever moves the world towards being a better place.  Whatever that means to you.

[sol]

On the other end of the spectrum we have charities here where the bulk of the money you donate ends up getting eaten up by administrative costs.  Why would I want to donate to those charities when most of my money isn't even going to help anyone, its just going to pay some executive a fat salary?

Why is administrative overhead cost in any way related to whether or not a charity is worthy of your donations?

I'd much rather donate to a charity with a 70% overhead rate that saves a human life with every $10 it spend than I would donate to a charity with a 10% overhead rate that saves one life per year. 

The portion of their budget that they spend on charity work, regardless of the overhead rate, can be an efficient or an inefficient use of funds.  For example, a weekly donation of $5 for a year will plant about 20 trees in a carbon sequestration project, removing over 20 tons of carbon from the atmosphere.  If you worry about global warming, that's a worthy goal.  But the same $5/week donation could instead provide clean water to an entire family in a part of the world where 20% of all children die of diarrhea because they can't get clean water.  That second donation is much more likely to literally save a life.

And if saving a child's life costs you $5/week and incrementally reducing atmospheric carbon levels also costs you $5/week, what does it matter what their relative administrative overhead costs are?  Shouldn't you be looking at the actual net impact of your donation?  Hiring staff to install a groundwater well in Africa necessarily involves a higher overhead cost than does planting 20 trees in Montana, but I don't think that really matters to the calculation of which is a more worthy use of your money.

[MrsPete]

I already told you, when I'm going to have kids I plan on it.  Why get married and live off just my income when we can play the game and live off my income + her government assistance.  This is the only way most families can afford a stay at home parent these days.  Keep denying reality as marriage rates are at all time lows and the number of people on government assistance programs are at all time highs, and those are two facts you can't deny.

No sane woman would have children with you under those circumstances. 

Consider her position:  She has a couple kids with you, doesn't put your name on the birth certificate.  The two of you have no legal ties:  No marriage, no proof that you're the children's father.  She has no job, no benefits, and cannot amass any savings in her own name (for fear of losing her welfare and housing benefits).  She isn't even building up Social Security credits for her old age.  Her entire future is dependent upon you continuing to "play nice" and share your paycheck.  In the mean time, she's the one who has to belittle herself by going to Social Services every month, where they'll scrutinize her finances.  She's the one who has to pay for her groceries with Food Stamps. 

If the two of you have a falling out, you can walk away from her and the kids.  The fake poverty will suddenly become real:  It's not so easy to walk back into the work force after being out a while, and -- even if she can -- she'll be stepping into an entry level job, and she'll have lost out on years in which she could've invested.  If you're a typical couple and she outlives you, she can't collect on your Social Security or pension (if you have one). 

No, I wouldn't take this deal.  Too much risk.

[TheNick]

On the other end of the spectrum we have charities here where the bulk of the money you donate ends up getting eaten up by administrative costs.  Why would I want to donate to those charities when most of my money isn't even going to help anyone, its just going to pay some executive a fat salary?

Why is administrative overhead cost in any way related to whether or not a charity is worthy of your donations?

I'd much rather donate to a charity with a 70% overhead rate that saves a human life with every $10 it spend than I would donate to a charity with a 10% overhead rate that saves one life per year. 

The portion of their budget that they spend on charity work, regardless of the overhead rate, can be an efficient or an inefficient use of funds.  For example, a weekly donation of $5 for a year will plant about 20 trees in a carbon sequestration project, removing over 20 tons of carbon from the atmosphere.  If you worry about global warming, that's a worthy goal.  But the same $5/week donation could instead provide clean water to an entire family in a part of the world where 20% of all children die of diarrhea because they can't get clean water.  That second donation is much more likely to literally save a life.

And if saving a child's life costs you $5/week and incrementally reducing atmospheric carbon levels also costs you $5/week, what does it matter what their relative administrative overhead costs are?  Shouldn't you be looking at the actual net impact of your donation?  Hiring staff to install a groundwater well in Africa necessarily involves a higher overhead cost than does planting 20 trees in Montana, but I don't think that really matters to the calculation of which is a more worthy use of your money.

Because obviously you'd start by comparing apples to apples...you know, actually comparing charities that do relatively the same thing.  If I wanted to donate to a charity that helped build houses in impoverished nations for example, would I want 90 cents of every dollar I donate actually being spent on materials and labor over there to directly build houses, or do I want one where only 30 cents on the dollar makes it to the destination.

[TheNick]

I already told you, when I'm going to have kids I plan on it.  Why get married and live off just my income when we can play the game and live off my income + her government assistance.  This is the only way most families can afford a stay at home parent these days.  Keep denying reality as marriage rates are at all time lows and the number of people on government assistance programs are at all time highs, and those are two facts you can't deny.

No sane woman would have children with you under those circumstances. 

Consider her position:  She has a couple kids with you, doesn't put your name on the birth certificate.  The two of you have no legal ties:  No marriage, no proof that you're the children's father.  She has no job, no benefits, and cannot amass any savings in her own name (for fear of losing her welfare and housing benefits).  She isn't even building up Social Security credits for her old age.  Her entire future is dependent upon you continuing to "play nice" and share your paycheck.  In the mean time, she's the one who has to belittle herself by going to Social Services every month, where they'll scrutinize her finances.  She's the one who has to pay for her groceries with Food Stamps. 

If the two of you have a falling out, you can walk away from her and the kids.  The fake poverty will suddenly become real:  It's not so easy to walk back into the work force after being out a while, and -- even if she can -- she'll be stepping into an entry level job, and she'll have lost out on years in which she could've invested.  If you're a typical couple and she outlives you, she can't collect on your Social Security or pension (if you have one). 

No, I wouldn't take this deal.  Too much risk.

Hi MrsPete.  I don't think the system works like you think it does.  I had a cousin who had a one night stand a few years ago, and a few months later the woman tracked him down as she was pregnant.  He didn't believe it was his so he told her to leave him alone, and he refused to be on the birth certificate when the kid was born.  After she had the baby, she pursued him in court, and all the happened was the court ordered DNA testing.  It turned out the kid wasn't his and she left him alone, but had the kid been his the court would have used that to establish parentage...meaning they would then put him on the birth certificate, and settled upon child support and custody rights.  As the next guy whom she accused of being the father, who actually was the father found out, it didn't matter that the kid was already almost a year old when DNA testing proved he was the father, he still owed child support and became the legal father of the child.

Long story short...the court is going to back the woman in cases like this because it cost them less money to have someone pay child support than for the state to potentially have to support the woman and child for 18 years.  My cousin had a sit down with a lawyer to figure out the best course of action when his drama started, and what he found out was if he signed the birth certificate and found out after the kid was born it wasn't biologically his kid, it didn't matter, unless the biological father basically sued to get on the birth certificate my cousin would have been on the hook with no way to get off...even if he had a DNA test shortly after the kid was born that proved he wasn't the father.  The state could care less...a DNA test can get a man on a birth certificate, but not off.

If SirFrugal does what he claims he wants to do, and him and his girlfriend have a falling out at any time it wouldn't matter if the kids were 10, as long as there is no father's name on the birth certificate she can take him to court, get a DNA test, and as long as he is the genetic father she will win.  Of course they could also just settle outside of court, SirFrugal could agree to give her xxx dollars a month or whatever, which added to her benefits might end up being more than what she would get in just straight up child support so they'd both make out better, or she could just sue for straight up child support.  I'm not disagreeing it might be hard for SirFrugal to find a woman willing to do this, but women that do this kind of stuff are definitely not left helpless while the baby daddy can just walk away with no responsibility.  Of course if baby daddy has no or very little documented income she wouldn't get much, but that doesn't seem to be the case with SirFrugal.

[MrsPete]

Hi MrsPete.  I don't think the system works like you think it does.

No, don't think about it from your cousin's situation:  That's not really the same -- that's about establishing parentage from the start.  Yes, your cousin was wise to do a DNA check before allowing his name to be placed on a birth certificate from a one-night stand.  Here's a similar situation:  My cousin (an idiot) was fooling around with a woman who was separated but not divorced, and she got pregnant.  She was still married to the other guy when the child was born, and according to state law that guy's name had to go on the birth certificate -- even though all three admitted, "Yeah, J is the father."  I actually work with a guy who -- for the same reason -- is the legal father of two girls, even though he is only the biological father of the older one.  Ridiculous, I know.

The situation proposed is that the unmarried couple has lived this way for a while -- long enough to have a couple kids -- then things to belly up.  If the woman has the money and the wherewithall to take Sir Frugal to court and demand a DNA test, yes, she can have it -- but, remember, this hypothetical woman has no money of her own. 

Let's say she does have money to take him to court; maybe her parents or siblings are helping her.  It's a tough argument to make:  "Yeah, this guy, who has been living right here in town all this time and working in the same job for years, yeah, I just figured out he's the father of my three children."  The people who work for Social Services aren't idiots; they'll know she's known the father all along.  Anyway, she files the paperwork ... and she's assigned a court date two months from now.  Maybe she has government housing, but now she really is living on food stamps.  And if he's trying to be a jerk, he goes into court and asks for an extension (which will be granted once), so now she's dragging on for months before she can go to court.  Yes, the court will order him to submit to a DNA test (assuming he hasn't left the state or disappeared), and then after that's processed, they can go back to court to determine child support.  By the time this actually happens, a year'll be gone.  After all that, hopefully he will pay his child support ... but that's not a certainty.  If he doesn't, she has options, but -- again -- those options take time, and she can't do anything 'til she's proven that he has a pattern of not paying.  Furthermore, if Sir Frugal has retired early and has no real income, she's stuck; as I said before, her fake poverty could become real poverty in a hurry. 

Maybe you're thinking that the state will help her -- nope.  If she's been claiming for years that she doesn't know the children's father, and she's been supporting herself on X amount from the state ... they're not going to suddenly agree to help prove that Sir Frugal's the dad -- she's already on the dole, and they don't want to go back and re-categorize her.  Plus she's been telling them for years that she's supporting herself on the money they've been giving her; going to the state for help means 'fessing up that she's known the dad all along and potentially opening herself to legal prosecution. 

Also, consider the kids' participation in this situation.  They're going to be dragged into a lab to have their cheeks swabbed to prove who their dad is.  No mom wants to put her kid through that; it's different when you're talking about a baby who won't remember. 

No, this we're-going-to-live-high-on-the-hog-while-on-the-government's-dime plan isn't a wise situation for a woman (or her children).  Too much risk. 

[gaja]

My two favorite charities go to 100 % administrative costs:
1. Training Greek tax collectors in how to collect taxes in a fair way, to avoid corruption and ensure that the cost of running a country is fairly distributed.
2. Training and establishing a functioning Somali bureaucracy, and paying for their salary to ensure that they don't depend on the ruling tribe or get corrupt.

I contribute to both of those through my tax money; they don't take direct private donations.

[Captain Mars]

The only charity I donate to, or will raise money for, is one I've seen up close and personal. I know exactly how the money is spent and how they operate. It's also for a cause that is irrefutably doing amazing things, saving childrens' lives around the world and training up doctors from remote and impoverished areas to save lives. I met some of the kids they'd saved, the doctors involved, even visited the OR. There's no substitute for seeing something up close and personal and knowing the worth of giving to a charity.

The OP is absolutely correct that there are a lot of shark charities out there who are not using funds appropriately and are heavy pressing vulnerable people into donating. It's sad but true.

The only way around this problem is to support charities that have impacted your own life in some way, or which you have seen up close and personal. If we all did that, the ones really making a difference would be getting the most funding, not the 'big names' or the ones using underhand tactics to amass funding while not really achieving anything worthwhile.

[TheNick]

No, this we're-going-to-live-high-on-the-hog-while-on-the-government's-dime plan isn't a wise situation for a woman (or her children).  Too much risk.

I see where your coming from, but its still really situational in my opinion.  If she only had a low wage job in that scenario it would be a net gain for her, but if she was leaving an 80,000 a year job, sure, it most certainly wouldn't make sense.  Yeah she could hold out until she finds someone that will marry her first, but then again its not exactly unheard of for women to get pregnant unwed these days.  Maybe SirFrugal doesn't plan it out with her ahead of time, it might just be a whoops baby or a woman trying to trap him with a kid, which both could be a very real possibility, and he simply just says no, I'm not signing the birth certificate....she's still in for the exact same court fight if she tried it when the kid was a newborn or a few years later.  At that point if SirFrugal laid the finances out before her and if playing nice + welfare + being a stay at home mom was better than him paying the minimum the state orders + her working, I could see how some people would bite on that and not think "Well what happens 5 years down the road if things change?"

I'm totally agreeing with you I don't think it would be the most wise decision a woman could make, but I also have to agree with SirFrugal that given the right conditions his plan makes an awful lot of sense.  Just for example...what if you have a guy that works mostly under the table and has very little income as far as the government is concerned?  What would the woman really gain by going after him for child support?  I know one couple that divorced and the guy at the time was working a low paying job, he had lost his job a few years prior and was still trying to get back into his field, and she literally got 10 dollars a week in child support.  It eventually got adjusted when he got a better job again, but had that better job not come around she'd still be getting 10 dollars a week.  If perhaps SirFrugal had under the table income coming in and was playing nice with her...would it really be in her best interest to take him to court if she was only going to get a pittance from him anyhow...especially if it might mean he stops playing nice after that?

Again I totally see where you are coming from...just playing the devil's advocate here, I don't think SirFrugal's idea is actually that far fetched, it probably just seems a little crazy if you look at it from the perspective of a couple who both earn a decent wage, and if he met a woman with a decent wage I doubt he'd want to try his plan vs just having her keep working.

[mathlete]

Short answer: No. Absolutely not.

Long Answer:

Affecting lasting, large scale, long term change on the most difficult issues that plague society is unfathomably difficult.

Your concerns about moral hazards are pretty unfounded though. Being poor sucks. I'm sure a lot of people in this forum have been poor before and they can confirm that being poor sucks. No one looks at charity as a way to enable them to continue being poor. Clocking in, working 8 hours, clocking out, and buying a burger is a much nicer experience than getting some free food from a soup kitchen and then wondering what the plan for tomorrow is.

Speaking of soup kitchens, I am familiar with a local soup kitchen that feeds the homeless daily and works with the homeless in other capacities. In the 20 year existence of the charity, there is one guy that they can point to as a bonafide long term success story. A guy who was long-term homeless who now has a job and is a "productive member of society" as it were.

This may cause some to think that the charity model as a whole is ineffective, but there is value in giving people hot food every day and occasionally, working out a warm place for them to sleep a night. Beyond that, there is no telling how many "temporarily homeless" people were helped by the program during the recession. Even if we're judging success solely on the one guy that the charity can take credit for, that is still huge. I'm a math guy so I like to put values on things. Bringing someone up from chronic homelessness and into a situation where they have a home and a W2 wage is worth a hell of a lot. Like, it is a net positive on the magnitude of seven figures. No question.

If you're still concerned, consider taking the following steps.

1.) Google "Effective Giving"
2.) Donate to a charity benefiting animals
3.) Pick a struggling family member and direct your resources towards helping them instead of donating to charity.
4.) Pick a non-profit to give to that has the future of humanity in mind rather than helping struggling people subsist. Examples include
     a.) NASA
     b.) The National Parks
     c.) World Wildlife Fund
     d.) The Gates Foundation
     e.) The Future of Life Institute (dedicate to making sure that when AI is developed, it is friendly to human interests)

[arebelspy]

Great post mathlete.

[Landlord2015]

Great post mathlete.

Great post indeed, but for USA view NASA is mainly for USA and Europe has different organistations. Of course some things like looking for an asteroid that can benefit all of mankind. An asteroid most likely killed the Dinosaurs, but modern technology has methods that can prevent that asteroid to hit Earth if it is detected in time.

Oh and this thread is one of the most offtopics thread. This thread is some kind of moral dispute thread more or less and has very little to do with economics of earning money. That said maybe OP got it in the opening post don't donate is best from pure economical view.

[accolay]

Adam Ruins Everything - Why You Shouldn't Donate Canned Food to Charities

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XbYInILDj6Q

[Leisured]

Rich countries have welfare for disadvantaged people. Many charities benefit disadvantaged people in poor countries directly.

The Hollows Foundation just delivers basic eye surgery, usually removing cataracts, and trains local people in these methods. It gives no money, and the beneficiaries are exclusively those with cataracts. Blindness in poor countries with no welfare is a very serious problem, partly to get a job.

TV advertisements in Australia often show Fred removing bandages from the eyes of a patient, and then asking the patient how many fingers he is holding up. Job satisfaction.

http://www.hollows.org.au/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gkgdFPpc900

Another world charity, Mercy Ships. A Mercy Ship is a floating hospital, staffed by volunteers, which stays in a port in a poor country for a few months, treats local people with severe medical problems which are beyond the scope of local doctors, mainly due to lack of facilities, drugs or money. The patients are the beneficiaries. More than half the world’s population live in or near a port.

http://www.mercyships.org/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qHWdOq2e_V8&list=PL50CF8FD420F62280

Be inspired.

[Shane]

Thanks @Leisured! Those are some great ideas.

[RetiredAt63]

Oh and this thread is one of the most offtopics thread. This thread is some kind of moral dispute thread more or less and has very little to do with economics of earning money. That said maybe OP got it in the opening post don't donate is best from pure economical view.

Exactly, which is why it is in Off Topic.  This is where we discuss everything else.

(Which means you were pointing out the obvious).