My post was not an argument against donating to charity. It was an argument against setting aside a percentage of your income for charity (or for anything), which is what the OP and various posters proposed that we should do.
Look, Cathy. I love your posts on this forum. I think we'd get along in real life. But on this thread, I think you're digging in your heels because you don't like reconsidering your values. It is like the person who doesn't like seeing frugal people with big bank accounts because it shines too bright a light on their consumerism.
First we talked about how you'll wait until you're rich. Then we talked about how some charities don't manage funds well. Then we talked about the welfare state. Now we're talking about percentages? I actually agree with you in principle on this last point since I don't feel that my 10% makes sense or is sufficient, but I think you're tilting at windmills.
For the last time - you're already rich. People need help now AND later. There are tons of organizations that do good in the world and don't waste a ton. The government doesn't solve all problems via the welfare state. We really can make things better for people.
What in the world is the problem with parting with some of your largesse to help prevent malaria in Sub-Saharan Africa? To protect our national parks? To save the bees? To support prison sentencing reform? Pick a cause you care about (I'm sure there is one) and own the hell out of it. Give to it (time and money). Advocate for it. Shit, be a board member.
I think I understand where Lyssa is coming from now. I still disagree with her and think she should consider the aforementioned book "The Life You Can Save," but she is not questioning for the sake of questioning. She gives some now and plans to give a shit ton later.
Side note for Lyssa - that's one thing I really like about German culture (lived there for a year when I was younger) - in my experience, Germans are forthright and just call things as they see them. It took me awhile to get used to because to an American it can sometimes sound like a biting criticism when it is really just a statement of what the person perceives as reality.
For the person who insinuated that I don't think giving time is valuable - false. Read my posts. I said charities need both. Also, read IP's post regarding how giving time only helps so much - MSF needs Doctors, ESL programs need teachers, etc. They need cash at some point.
tl;dr
- Charities need cash & time.
- Not all charities are bad.
- If you're on this forum and in the developed world, you're probably already rich and can afford to help.
- The welfare state doesn't fix everything and doesn't do a ton for people outside your country.
- Almost no one here is espousing a radical individualist 'help no one, live for yourself only' philosophy.
- I think I understand you now, Lyssa.
- Cathy, I love you on this forum, which is why I find perplexing what I perceive as your intransigence on this issue.
As I've written on my blog, I think how much anyone donates to charity is that person's business. As with all deeply personal things, including money in general, it is that person's decision, and I think it is inappropriate to require everyone to give with coercion.
Well according to many posters on this thread, that's what the gov is doing via the welfare state. How about you go question that instead of worrying about a debate of ideas?
Seriously, we have case studies and question consumerism all the time - how in the holy hell is talking about this issue out of bounds? You're like the 3rd person who has said this via a 1 or 2 liner.