Does Charity Cause More Harm Than Good?

[Shane]

Recently my wife and I have been discussing possible strategies for teaching our 7 year old daughter about money. A book my wife read recommended using 3 "envelopes" for kids to be able to visualize where their money is going. The book suggested taking 10% off the top of any money a child gets from working or Christmas presents or whatever and putting that money into the "Charity Envelope." The rest of the kid's money would get split 50/50, with half going into the "Savings Envelope" and the other half going into the "Spending Envelope." I'm fine with the 50/50 saving/spending split, but I'm against blindly putting 10% of income into the "Charity Envelope."

My issue with charity is that I believe many charities cause more harm for society than they do good. Giving money or food to people who identify themselves as needy, without requiring that they jump through any hoops to get the assistance, creates a moral hazard IMO. It encourages them to continue or even escalate behaviors which have gotten them into the position where they need assistance in the first place. If people know they can blow all their money on tv dinners, partying, lattes, cigarettes, weed, or whatever, and the food bank or Welfare will bail them out if they don't have enough money to buy food for their kids at the end of the month, and they aren't required to do anything in exchange for the assistance, then they will be more likely to engage in similar behaviors in the future rather than less, because they, rightfully, believe that charities or the government will bail them out if they get into trouble.

I believe that, as a society, we should help people who are in financial trouble, especially if they have kids who obviously can't be held responsible for their parents' irresponsible acts, but recipients of public assistance or charity should be required to receive education and counseling designed to eliminate or at least minimize their need to collect charity in the future. For example, if I walk into the food bank tomorrow, I can get canned food, bread, juice, etc., with basically no questions asked. My thought is that simply doling out food, although it obviously helps people to not be hungry in the short term, in the long term it makes them dependent on those subsidies and even encourages them to be less responsible with their finances than if they knew nobody was going to step in and bail them out if they ran out of money in the future.

Obviously, if people are really hungry, and especially if they've got kids, we should give them immediate assistance. Our country is rich enough that nobody should have to starve. But, I also believe that in order to continue receiving cash or food assistance, recipients should be required to participate in counseling, take classes on budgeting, cooking, nutrition, etc., designed to eliminate or, at least, greatly reduce their continued dependence on subsidies in the future. In other words, if somebody walks into the food bank and wants to get a loaf of bread and a can of soup, the answer should be, "Sure, you can have the food, but first we need you to sit down for 15 minutes with one of our counselors who can help you to come up with a budget, discuss nutrition and ways of creatively stretching your food budget," with the goal being to eventually help the person to no longer need the assistance of the food bank. If the person, for whatever reason, doesn't want to or doesn't have to time to sit down with a counselor to discuss budgeting, etc., that's fine, but they shouldn't get any food IMO.

What I see in reality is that usually organizations like food banks or Welfare or whatever operate on the premise that "more is better." The director of a food bank that gives out 100 tons of food/year is envious of the director of another food bank that gives out 200 tons of food/year. Rather than the end goal of a charity being to eventually work themselves out of a job, it seems like they more often operate under the assumption that the more food or money or shelter they give out for free to people, the better they're doing. I disagree. I think that "success" in charity should mean eventually having no more customers. If fewer and fewer people come into your food bank every month, that should be a good thing, but it seems like that's not usually the case in the real world.

What do you guys think? Do you earmark a certain percentage of your income for charity? If so, how much? Do you believe that the money you are giving to charity is helping? If so, what metrics do you use to measure the success of your chosen charities? Have you ever given to a charity that eventually ceased to exist because there was no longer a need for its services? If so, was that seen as a good thing or bad?

[Villanelle]

We give to charity, though it isn't a specific earmark, and we plan to leave most of our money to charity.  Much of it will go to the local zoo which does amazing work with endangered species and is the kind of zoo where you feel the animals are well-treated and likely pretty happy.  I doubt the need for their programs will ever cease to exist, but that's not because rhinos have become dependent on or expectant of charity. 

I do think some charities do more harm than good. Since that's the way you feel, look for charities that don't seem to do that.  Someone here recently posted about an organization that helps prisoners settle in to life post-incarceration, which keeps recidivism rates low.  I can't see offhand how that does harm, as one example.  If prisoners aren't the group you want to help, look for an organization that teaches financial literacy or provides job training, or something of which you can be more supportive.  There are so many charities, big and small, that there's no way all of them fall into your definition of more harm than good.    Programs like Heifer International also come to mind.  They give animals to people who then use the animals to create income (selling eggs, wool, etc.) and they pass on some of the offspring to others.  The people still have to raise the animals and do the work associated with collecting the income-producing product.  (I think it would be tough to argue that these people become dependent on being gifted animals.)  Even micro loans via orgs like Kiva, though they aren't really charity, exactly, might be a good fit for you. 

I won't comment on the kid's envelope thing, since that's not what you asked about, but I am certain there are solid charities that are in line with your values. 

[Bertram]

Too many assumptions and too much "common sense" paired with too little experience makes one come up with these theories. I know because I though very similar when I was younger.
Not that common sense is a bad thing, but it usually starts with assuming everyone else is like you/me.

If you learn more more about modern charities and the work they do (there's plenty of talks and books) you'll find they're way ahead of you. There's a lot of work going on to tackle the source of the problem and make lasting improvements. But yeah you can always find ones that do things wrong, just like with any human endeavor there are those that do better, those that are average, and those that are bad... I don't see it as a specific problem of charities.

Yes I give, a few thousand a year now that I do better. But I've always given at least a few hundred a year since I started earning my own paychecks.

[Gin1984]

So the single parent who works two jobs should not get food for her kids because she.... does not have time to spend going over her budget because she is working.  Because yes, that makes so sense.  I think, like the other poster you should young and without much experience.  Maybe learn a bit more about the working poor before making your statements?

[deborah]

Charity can be anything - random acts of kindness, giving to somewhere that hands out stuff, giving to a relief organization, or the lost dogs home...

Surely you can come up with a charity that suits your daughter and you.

[GreenSheep]

http://www.richroll.com/podcast/william-macaskill/

"Doing Good Better"

"We devote our precious time to causes we deem worthy. We donate our precious funds to charities that appear to make a difference. We pursue careers we consider meaningful, and patronize businesses and buy products we believe make the world a better place.

Unfortunately, we often base these decisions on assumptions and emotions rather than facts. As a result, even our best intentions often lead to ineffective—and sometimes downright harmful—outcomes.

So how can we do better?"

[maizefolk]

While the overall argument you're making could apply to lots of cases, you're focused particularly on food* in your examples, so let's talk about that. You and I agree that no one should be starving, especially in a country as rich as ours. And it's not just that our country is rich, but that the food we produce is is such an incredibly good value in terms of how little is costs for the very things we all need to survive. I'm not comfortable with making food aid contingent on people jumping through specific hoops (even very minor and ultimately helpful ones like those you propose) because ultimately that strategy only works if we're truly willing to let a person starve if they don't follow the rules. Personally I'm happier subsidizing even completely irresponsible people with rice and canned beans for life than letting a person starve if they don't take steps to better their lives.

Aside from my ethical problems, I would also have logistical objections to the proposed system. Food is cheap, but hiring people isn't. The most commonly quoted numbers I could find online was that, because food banks often benefit from donations of wholesale food products, their cost per meal (defined as 1.2 lbs of food) is between 12.5-25 cents. Assuming the in-house counselor who is sitting down with each hungry person for their pre-food makes $30k/year and works a 40 hour week the cost of employing her to the food bank is likely >$40k/year or $20 an hour. That means each 15 minute counseling session costs $5 or enough to have provided another 20-40 meals worth of food to the hungry. So if you're running a food bank, from a purely economic standpoint it's likely better to accept a small fraction of the people you're giving out food to don't need it than spend the majority of your total budget trying to identify who really needs food and who doesn't and as a result have a lot less food let to give to those in truly desperate circumstances.

I'm not going to argue the same logic applies to all types of charity. I also think it's perfectly reasonable for you to disagree, nor do I think you have any obligation in how you train your daughter to handle her money. But speaking for myself, I'm not losing any sleep at night worrying that making sure people (especially children) who would otherwise be hungry have enough to eat might also mean I'm helping to feed a few people who probably didn't need to help.

*And specifically food banks which hand out things like canned goods and peanut butter, not food stamps which can be used for any kind of food.

[Beridian]

Throughout human history there have been the lazy and the freeloaders.  What is most unfortunate is how so many people can only see the lazy and the freeloader who are a small fraction of the actual people in need, and somehow completely miss the many others who have just been dealt a pretty shitty hand in life.  People also fail to empathize and consider the rough road that someone may have traveled that ultimately brought them to that food bank.  Yes I am sure that that road was paved with some bad choices, but I’ll bet for many there was also an equal if not greater portion of plain bad luck. 

I am not a religious person but I certainly can believe in the concept of good luck or more appropriately being fortunate.   Have you never dabbled in recreational drugs?  Maybe you were just fortunate that you didn’t have an addictive personality and were able to escape the addiction trap that latched on and destroyed the lives of so many others.   Did you ever have premarital sex?  Maybe you were just lucky that parenthood wasn’t forced on you before you were mature enough and financially able to bear the load of children.  Have you ever driven a car while just a little tipsy?  Maybe you were just fortunate that the police didn’t notice you, or that your last traffic stop didn’t escalate into greater charges because the cop happened to be having a bad day or maybe your skin was a different color.  Who knows, maybe you were pulled over and the cops gave you a break.  I can recall the cops giving me a break on several occasions where I was guilty, but then again I was a white kid from a decent community.  Just lucky I guess.

Maybe you were fortunate enough to be born into a good family with on-the-ball highly effective parents.  You might have just as easily been born into the home of a single meth addicted mother.  How would your life be different I wonder?  Perhaps you have been fortunate enough to have been born with a strong intellect.  I know several young adults struggling to build a life for themselves who have IQs in the low sixties.  What would your life be like if you had been born with an IQ of 60?   Maybe you grew up in a community of responsible caring people who mentored you, made sure you had ample opportunities to advance, healthy activities to fill your time, and who kept you safe.  Many people have not had the good fortune to grow up in such a place.

I like your idea of counseling people whose life has run off the rails.  Did you know that social workers are some of the lowest paid people who have professional degrees?  Most states have severely cut the head count of their social services departments.   Do you support those in your community that work to improve funding for social service programs, jobs programs, drug rehab programs, and after school programs for at-risk kids?  Do you also support higher funding for schools in poor communities, because at-risk children need much more support and supervision than kids in well-heeled communities where the support systems are bountiful.   All of these things help to reduce poverty and dysfunction.  I hope you are doing everything you can to support such things.

And while you teach your daughter about money I suggest you also teach her about compassion and gratitude.  She is a lucky kid to have two capable caring parents.

[Uturn]

Find a different kind of charity.  There is more need than just food.

* The charity I'm involved with mentors your people who went astray and need help learning the life skills needed to stay out of jail or off welfare
* My ex used to volunteer at a charity that was special needs kids and a working farm
* There are charities to find cures/treatments for illnesses

It's very easy to find need in the world.  There are plenty of charities that require an application and vetting process. 

[Kaydedid]

Instead of giving money, why don't you all volunteer for a charity?  Find something where you actually get to talk to the folks you're helping, and make an effort to get to know people.  A lot of people struggle with loneliness, especially older and/or disabled folks, who make up a large percentage of charity recipients.  Husband and I volunteer weekly at a community dinner and food pantry, and although they give away a lot of items, many many people have listed friendship and social connections above any physical gift as the number one reason they come  every week.  They say the best antidote to racism is getting to know someone of a different race-why not try the same for people in different economic strata?  I had sentiments like yours similar to volunteering-now, to be honest, I'm in awe of the perserverance and hard work of a lot of these people.

And I agree, the end goal is definitely to get people to the point where they don't need assistance.  But realistically, there are always going to be people who need help.  Most recipients of charity only receive for a short time, usually because their financial safety net (savings, family members etc.) has failed during a rough time.  Then there are people who are permanently disabled (more than you'd think), who at best can only work part-time or not at all, and have family unable or unwilling to care for them.  This is where we need to shine as a society-to provide for those who truly can't provide for themselves, whether temporarily or permanently.

[ltt]

So, how do you explain to your 7 year old daughter about the kids at school who get free or reduced lunches while the taxes you specifically pay are going toward that?

I do not believe that charities work themselves out of existence.  I have yet to see one do so.  Charities, or other non-profits, if they ceased to exist, would cause many people to be unemployed. 

We give some to our church.  We also look for those small groups who are short on funds and really don't have a way to gain major funds, but need support.

[Vanguards and Lentils]

I recently learned the concept of motivated reasoning from Dan Ariely's blog and this seems to be an example of it. The end goal of your reasoning has an obvious benefit (keeping more money, while retaining one's sense of moral uprightness).

One point about your reasoning I don't understand is how you came to interpret the "charity envelope" as giving food banks. Even if these are ineffective, what about all the other charities that are effective? Look up givewell or charity navigator, which are nonprofits devoted to finding effective charities. I would suggest taking the recommendations of these organizations, since they specialize in such research, rather than giving your children specious excuses not to give ("they're going to spend it on drugs and alcohol" and the like).

[sunday]

You can surely find some charity you don't morally object to: clean water initiatives for third world countries, doctors without borders, mosquito nets for malaria stricken places, saving wildlife, on and on.

[Playing with Fire UK]

The 10% from your kid's envelope could go to 'giving' rather than charity? So would include presents for other people. The Happy Money book suggests that people are happier when they give some of their money away, but gifts work as well as donations. 

If your child has a charity they would like to give to, would that address what you are trying to achieve with the giving envelope even if you don't like the particular cause? I think that if you look to developing countries there will be more opportunities to help without creating dependence, maybe disaster relief? There are a number of websites that screen charities, so you could look at that if you want to give smarter. I like these but there are loads of others:
http://www.thelifeyoucansave.org
www.intelligentgiving.com
http://www.intelligentphilanthropy.com

This may be totally irrelevant, but in the UK you need to be referred to a food bank and can only go a few times a year; there is a programme to offer a financial planning review with users, before they get their food. If you feel strongly about this you could probably find a charity that offers financial advice to food bank users.

Overall, I think it is a good thing for kids to learn that some of the money they receive goes to others; I agree that thoughtless giving can be unproductive or harmful, and I think there are organisations that do really good work and could do better with more money. But as a parent the choice is yours.

[Shane]

Thanks to all of you who posted thoughtful, constructive responses to my OP.

My intent was to discuss charity in general and the moral hazard which can sometimes be created when charities bail people out of trouble. If giving to certain charities is likely to make conditions for the intended recipients worse in the long run, probably none of us would want to do that, right? That's what I wanted to talk about, with the goal of hopefully finding a way around that moral dilemma.

Just to be clear, the reason I'm bringing up this discussion is because I want to donate my time and money to charities in early retirement. I see my opportunity to FIRE partly as a chance for me to have the time and resources to give something back to the world. I feel like I've been really blessed in many ways, and I'd like to help other people who haven't been as fortunate as I have. As I get ready to begin FIRE, I'm thinking of ways I can volunteer and/or give money to worthy causes I believe in. That's why I'm posting on here about charities.

Sorry, if my OP gave the impression I was somehow against food banks. I was just using that as an example. My reason for posting was not to start a debate specifically about food banks, and in no way was I suggesting that it would be worthwhile for food banks to hire staff to screen people who came in to get something to eat. Just give 'em the food if they're hungry. My suggestion that food aid be dependent on a willingness to sit down with a counselor was not to hassle the people by trying to make them prove they really needed the food. My thinking was that people who needed to go to a food bank to get something to eat were probably struggling in their lives in other ways, as well, and could maybe benefit from sitting down with someone who really cared about them and would be willing to help them get their lives straightened out, with the goal being to eventually get themselves to a place where they no longer needed to go to a food bank to get something to eat.

Recently I've been reading some threads here on the MMM Forums in which many members have expressed an interest in leaving part or even all of their stashes to various charities after they die, so it seemed appropriate that we have a discussion about charities and maybe come up with some ideas on how we can be sure the organizations we're donating our time and money to aren't doing more harm than good.

I guess I should first state that my bias is towards believing that it's generally better for people to be able to take care of themselves with as little reliance on charity as possible. If you believe that reliance on charity is somehow a good thing, then maybe you can explain why? Otherwise, I'm going to assume we all agree that helping as many people as possible to be able to support themselves should be a goal we work towards. Probably we'll never be able to completely eliminate the need for charities, but that seems like the direction we should at least be trying to move in IMO.

Obviously, there are many charities which do important work and help many people, animals, the environment, etc. @Villanelle's ideas were all awesome: Heifer International is an organization my wife and I have given to in the past. I also read the post @Villanelle mentioned where the couple was working with families of prisoners and helping the prisoners to reintegrate back into society after they get out of jail. Something like that sounds really interesting to me.

With few exceptions, I've never really given much money to charities. For some reason, I have difficulty with giving up control and just handing over cash to an organization that claims it's going to do good things with it. On the other hand, I have many times engaged in random acts of kindness towards people I didn't know and probably will never meet again. I believe strongly that if we treat people the way we would like to be treated, that it'll eventually come back to us. Even if it doesn't come back to us directly, at least it can make the world a better place. I also believe in the story that says if you give a man a fish, you feed him for a day, but if you teach him how to catch fish, he'll be able to feed himself for his entire life. I'm hoping to give of my time and perhaps money during FIRE to organizations which concentrate on the latter strategy.

Here's another example of what I'm talking about where helping someone without requiring that he at least attempt to change some of the behaviors which got him into trouble in the first place, may do more harm than good: A few years ago I got a call from my youngest brother, and he asked me if I would be willing to lend him $30K to use to consolidate all of his credit card debt. He promised to pay me back with interest instead of paying it to the credit card companies. The first thing I asked my brother was, if I lent him the money, would he be willing to cut up his credit cards and not make any new charges on them, at least until he had completely paid off his debt to me? That seemed like a perfectly legitimate request to me, but when I asked my brother that question over the phone it got really quiet for a moment, and then he said something like, "Well, I couldn't cut up my credit cards. If I did that, what would I do if I ever needed to buy something and I didn't have the cash..." :)

If my brother had been willing to discuss altering his behavior in exchange for the financial aid he was asking for, I would've considered lending him the money, but since he refused to consider that he might be the problem and not the credit card companies, I didn't lend him the money. My brother eventually found a bank that was willing to give him a debt consolidation loan to pay off his CCs. Fast forward a few years, and he's still in debt, only now it's worse than ever. He has a big loan payment every month for all of his earlier debt, PLUS he's got giant CCs bills to pay in addition to the original $30K loan. My brother's actually worse off now than he was a few years ago when he came to me for help. I'm glad I never lent him any money.

Here's another one: Yesterday afternoon my family and I were pulling out of WalMart's parking lot, and there was a middle age guy sitting on the sidewalk near the stop sign with a bicycle propped up behind him, and he was holding a cardboard sign that read, "Stranded. Need car battery. Please help." For a moment I thought about stopping to see how I might be able to help the guy, but then I decided not to for some reason. If I had stopped, my help would've been contingent on the man's being able to convince me that my paying for his battery would not be throwing good money after bad. In my opinion, if somebody is so broke he can't afford to pay for a relatively inexpensive thing like a car battery, then maybe that's a sign that he shouldn't oughta have a car in the first place. Hmmmmmm.... The guy had a perfectly good bike. "Why do you need a car?" is what I would've asked him. I would've suggested to him that he sell his car, put the money in the bank, and keep riding his bike everywhere until such time that he was  doing well enough that he could afford to maintain a car if he still wanted one.

The point is that I'm going to be looking for charities that have some component of teaching people to fish, rather than just giving them fish to eat. I would like to help people who need it and who are willing to consider learning and adopting new ideas into their daily lives. If somebody wants me to give him money to buy a battery for his car, he's going to need to be able to convince me that he's got a long-range plan which will allow him to buy his own batteries and gasoline and tires and all of the other things his car is going to need in the future.

Thanks again for all of your responses. I'll be looking forward to hearing any other ideas you guys may have.

[Shane]

Instead of giving money, why don't you all volunteer for a charity?  Find something where you actually get to talk to the folks you're helping, and make an effort to get to know people.  A lot of people struggle with loneliness, especially older and/or disabled folks, who make up a large percentage of charity recipients. 

This is something we're seriously considering. Right now, we live in the country. It's a long drive for us just to go into town to do our shopping and run errands. By the time we finish the things we have to do in town, we're ready to go back home. Obviously it wouldn't be impossible for us to go to town to volunteer in a soup kitchen or teach English to immigrants, but we're human and we can only do so many things well. Right now, we're concentrating on getting our home ready to sell. Every day we've been painting, cleaning, decluttering, selling things on CL, cutting grass, weeding flower beds, etc.

In the near future, my family and I are planning on slow traveling around the world for a year or two, and we have been brainstorming ways we might make ourselves of service to people we meet along our journey. One of the sites I've been looking at a lot is Helpx.net. There's a whole variety of stuff posted on there, some of which are just regular jobs, but there are also volunteer opportunities helping out individuals and organizations that are doing what sounds like good work all over the world. We are also open to the chance of meeting people along the way in our travels who may need our help and we can give to them directly of our time and/or money.

[arebelspy]

I mean, sure, it's better if people can help themselves.. but how are poor people in Africa supposed to make their own malaria vaccination from scratch?

There are just some things where it seems obvious that we can, and should, help.

If that's the case, your argument against charity falls apart, because even if some are unhelpful (in your view)... don't donate to them.  Donate where you find it effective.

[rantk81]

I live in Chicago and I make multiple trips to the grocery store per week.  (I don't have a car, and I can only carry so much at a time.)  Probably more than half the time, the person buying groceries in front of me at the checkout line is using an EBT/Link/Benefit card for payment.  I sometimes wonder if I'm the only person in the whole city who is actually paying for his own groceries :)  I just assume that those cards are given out in my neck-of-the-woods fairly liberally without much verification of need.  I guess I'd rather have my taxes buying groceries for people than bombs to explode people half way across the world... but oh well.

[Louisville]

Nice to see a very rationale, measured set of replies to a potentially touchy subject. Only one reply got snippy and was not constructive.

[zephyr911]

How do you even have relationships, with such a pessimistic attitude toward human nature?

And how can anyone have a productive discussion of charity beginning with the assumption that all forms are equal, and we're all helpless to parse helpful from unhelpful forms of assistance?

[protostache]

I live in Chicago and I make multiple trips to the grocery store per week.  (I don't have a car, and I can only carry so much at a time.)  Probably more than half the time, the person buying groceries in front of me at the checkout line is using an EBT/Link/Benefit card for payment.  I sometimes wonder if I'm the only person in the whole city who is actually paying for his own groceries :)  I just assume that those cards are given out in my neck-of-the-woods fairly liberally without much verification of need.  I guess I'd rather have my taxes buying groceries for people than bombs to explode people half way across the world... but oh well.

In Illinois you have to meet categorical, residency, income and nutritional risk requirements in order to get EBT/WIC/SNAP benefits. I have no experience with Illinois specifically but I know in Oregon you have to take in pay stubs and bank account statements to verify income levels, as well as a bill or drivers' license to verify residency.

[Sailor Sam]

Shane, I don't mind the idea that the ultimate goal of charity should be to end the need for charity worldwide. But we do not agree on the philosophy that human beings must prove themselves worthy of cash aid. Humans are utterly terrible at mandating morality. Add a power differential between rich and poor, and you have a bad dynamic. By what right do you hold the stings and lay out the hoops?

[Hugerat]

Yeesh, and here I thought this would be a thoughtful discussion on the efficacy of certain types of charity, and how to maximize the impact of one's giving. Or maybe it could have been about the scammy nature of many purported charities out there, who spend most of your dollars on overhead and employee salaries and little on their stated purpose.

But instead it's the same old pick yourself up by your bootstraps trope. Look, most charities aren't offering much more than a bowl of soup to those who are hungry, or a roof and a bed for a night for people who would otherwise be out in the cold. Some of the better-established ones might offer things like job training or other life skills so that people can pick themselves up by their bootstraps! The OP's brother is a non-sequitor. He's not a charity case. He's just a dope.

[Shane]

Shane, I don't mind the idea that the ultimate goal of charity should be to end the need for charity worldwide. But we do not agree on the philosophy that human beings must prove themselves worthy of cash aid. Humans are utterly terrible at mandating morality. Add a power differential between rich and poor, and you have a bad dynamic. By what right do you hold the stings and lay out the hoops?

I'm not saying that human beings must prove themselves worthy of anything. All I'm saying is that I, personally, am going to be looking for charities to give my time and money to that don't only address immediate problems, although that's obviously important as well, but that also have a plan for empowering people to make things better for themselves in the long term.

For example, Heifer International. Their business model is they take donations from people like us and use that money to give an animal, like a goat, to a family that needs one. They train the family to care for their goat or sheep or whatever, and then the deal is that eventually when the animal reproduces the family must give one of the offspring to another needy person or family and train them how to care for the animal. Rinse and repeat. This seems like a brilliant strategy to me, and I'll be more than happy to help an organization like this, either through volunteering my time, money or both.

Contrast this to a strategy where a charity only addresses the immediate problem of hunger by passing out free meals. Giving someone a bowl of soup may help with her immediate issue of being hungry, but it doesn't solve the longer term problem of the lack of enough food to eat in a community. Whereas I think the Heifer International business model does make things better for people in the long term.

One of my brothers was a Peace Corps volunteer in Mauritania. After he returned from Africa, my brother told me about his experiences there. He said the people where he lived were almost completely dependent on foreign donations of food for their survival. Apparently up until around the 1960's the population of Mauritania had remained relatively sustainable at around 500,000 people. Once foreign food aid began pouring into Maruitania the population began to grow, and now there are ~4MM people living there or 8 times the historically sustainable population. The country's a desert. 70% of the food those people eat is imported because only a tiny portion of the land in the country is suitable for agriculture. In my mind, the charities that have been handing out food to people in Mauritania, while well intentioned, have been making the long term situation there worse, not better. I'll try to avoid supporting charities that only give out food aid with no plans for empowering people to sustainably support themselves in the long term.

Again, my argument is not that all charity is bad. I'm actively researching charities that seem to be making a sustainable, long term difference, where I can feel good about helping them.

[Vanguards and Lentils]

Not going to address the arguments any more, but you might want to look at this list of very popular charities that givewell has recommended against, which included Heifer International. Some savvy people are already working on finding the most effective charities.

On the other side, they've also found that giving cash directly to people who need it most IS effective, by the fact that GiveDirectly is one of their four top charities this year. Not sure exactly how it fits into the stereotype you hold of the "irresponsible poor person"; you can read about the effects they found here. 

[Sailor Sam]

I'm struggling to understand what you want out of this thread. It started with your daughter, then your philosophy about how immediate-need charities are immoral. But you want to give to charities that have a long term empowerment plan. You've named a couple orgs that appeal to you, so it sounds like you already know where to start. What would you like from us? Recommendations? Philosophical discussion?

[NoraLenderbee]

I think there is an unspoken assumption in the OP: that a lot of charity goes to people who are responsible for their own mess, and that the recipient needs to be "fixed" so they won't be needy any more. Of course there are some people like that, but the OP seems to believe that they are a large majority.

[Shane]

Not going to address the arguments any more, but you might want to look at this list of very popular charities that givewell has recommended against, which included Heifer International. Some savvy people are already working on finding the most effective charities.

On the other side, they've also found that giving cash directly to people who need it most IS effective, by the fact that GiveDirectly is one of their four top charities this year. Not sure exactly how it fits into the stereotype you hold of the "irresponsible poor person"; you can read about the effects they found here.

Thanks for the links @supermatthew. That's interesting that they're not recommending Heifer International. I'll have to do some more research to find out what's going on. In the past I read some really positive things about HI...

[Louisville]

Nice to see a very rationale, measured set of replies to a potentially touchy subject. Only one reply got snippy and was not constructive.

I guess I spoke too soon...

[MMM365]

Shane:

Thank you for raising this issue since I feel strongly that this is an important part of finance which is commonly ignored.  I think that you ask three things:  1) Should we do anything particular when it comes to raising our children and teaching about charitable giving, 2) do people feel that charity works or does it encourage dependence, and 3) do any of us give and how much?  And maybe, why? 

I think when deciding if you're going to do the three envelope thing, you need to decide what is the purpose?  For us, we do use the three envelope model and encourage the kids to save 10%, give 10% and utilize 80% (spend wisely, and save for future as well).  We do it to teach the children about generosity and charity, not necessarily to change the world with their giving.  I believe that the lessons of generosity and charity can be learned early and are much easier learned early and this is our sole reason for having them set aside 10% for giving.  When teaching them about philanthropy and helping others, we are intentional on how we spend time doing services for others (cooking at a homeless shelter, teaching at a underserved school, etc). 

The question you raise is whether charitable dollars encourage dependence.  There is much being studied (and argued) in the literature about the best way to help those with less resources.  Whether within the US or in the rest of the world, the answer is that it is complicated.  Throw in the inefficiencies of many nonprofits, and the question of where charitable donations is most effective becomes even more challenging.  For this reason, I spend more time looking into charities that I intentionally give to than I do with my investments.  I try to support nonprofits that encourage infrastructure, education, and freedom from trafficking/abuse; these types of development based charities (as opposed to crisis/needs based charities) build communities for the future (I hope).  As well, I only give to nonprofits that use 85% or more of the donations for program expenses.  When I do give to programs that provide food and shelter (crisis/needs based charities), I typically only will choose programs that are truly intentional about those programs.  If you are interested, look up "effective altruism" and Peter Singer. 

Finally, how much do we give?  We give 20% of our after tax income.  We are fortunate to be FI at this point in our lives and feel blessed to have a heart to give to others and to build up communities in underresourced area. 

I will follow this thread closely as I'm interested in what others do and how to justify where/how much to give their resources. 

[Shane]

I'm struggling to understand what you want out of this thread. It started with your daughter, then your philosophy about how immediate-need charities are immoral. But you want to give to charities that have a long term empowerment plan. You've named a couple orgs that appeal to you, so it sounds like you already know where to start. What would you like from us? Recommendations? Philosophical discussion?

As I said earlier, it seemed like it would be interesting to hear everyone's thoughts on charity in general and maybe have a discussion about how we can best reach our goals of helping people who need it, while at the same time minimizing the chances that our donations of time and money will cause more pain and suffering in the long term. I wasn't necessarily looking for specific recommendations of worthy charities. I was more interested in having a meta-discussion about charity in general, so I guess it's your last option, "philosophical discussion." Sometimes, though, discussions tend to go in directions initially unintended by the OP. That can be interesting too. :)

[Kitsune]

Seems relevant to this discussion: http://parenting.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/10/28/to-teach-children-to-give-tell-them-how-much-your-family-has-been-given/

Also: if you think you're encouraging bad behavior by donating to food banks, why don't you donate time and work with a training center for adults instead? Do tutoring? Plan a program for free lunches in schools (I'm assuming we agree that kids shouldn't go hungry because of their parents choices, right?) Donate to mental health care for veterans? Animal shelters? Spaying animals in animal shelters in hopes that there will be fewer strays to take care of? Seriously, find SOME cause you care about and find a way to make it better, and teach your children that it's more productive to make a difference than to judge those that need help on an individual level.

And since you just asked for 'everyone's thoughts on charity in general': I have advantages that other people don't, and I handle my stuff and don't need help, which means I have the time and resources to help others who need it and to hopefully make a positive difference. Also, in a more blunt tone, accepting a hand up the ladder and not extending it back down is a dick move, and I want to teach my kids that, as we accept help (historically, in our families, via maternity leave or a job reference or a well-placed gift or SOMETHING), we have an obligation to give forwards, and if we don't NEED help we are even more fortunate and should extend that hand to those who need it.

[lbmustache]

I think there is an unspoken assumption in the OP: that a lot of charity goes to people who are responsible for their own mess, and that the recipient needs to be "fixed" so they won't be needy any more. Of course there are some people like that, but the OP seems to believe that they are a large majority.

Yep. I think some previous posters mentioned it too. Reminds me of the argument that all welfare recipients need to be drug tested because they're all blowing it on drugs... and surprise, surprise it's a minute percentage that actually does it.

With every "charity"-type scenario, you are going to have a few people who abuse it. For the most part however, the people are actually in need of items.

To the OP, for the Walmart example, you are operating under the assumption that everyone is financially-savvy, everyone understands the logic behind spending, and essentially why didn't this moron just budget better and then he wouldn't be where he is. The world doesn't work that way.

I went to the grocery store a few evenings ago and saw a family of 4 - with two young kids asking - for donations. It's 9pm at night, 50 degrees, and this family is huddled by the entrance. The family looked reasonably "clean" and "well-dressed," maybe prompting the assumption that they were not "homeless," or as "poor" as they were implying. I could have walked away or given them a lecture. Why not go to a shelter? You look able-bodied, why not get a job? Instead I bought the kids a box of snacks and the parents a $15 grocery gift card. At the end of the day, $20 isn't going to break the bank for me, and I don't like to fall into the trap of assuming everyone is a scammer or liar.

Another time I gave food to a homeless man with a dog. Again, I could've thought, "Why does this guy have an animal if he can't support himself?" "Why doesn't he get a job," or other negative thoughts. Instead, I bought him a sandwich, a bottle of water, and his dog a can of food. $10 for me and nothing weighing on my conscience.

Please read: http://www.raptitude.com/2014/09/how-to-be-a-good-stranger/ 
and http://www.raptitude.com/2015/04/small-habit/

We make snap judgments of others all the time, and it’s not really on purpose. Those kinds of thoughts happen like reflexes. But we don’t have to believe them. If my initial impression of a stranger is a negative one, there’s no reason to take for granted that he truly is undeserving of respect, help, or well-wishes. In fact, I am almost certainly wrong to come to any conclusions about a person’s character after only “knowing” them for three seconds.

And I no longer believe that these kinds of judgments are somehow helpful to the world at large — that I’m somehow upholding order and civilization with my intolerance of any perceived infringement of sidewalk ethics. They are only helpful in a completely self-serving way: to convince myself that I shouldn’t be experiencing the inconvenience I’m currently experiencing.

and

It’s almost a custom in our society, to dismiss by default the idea of actually caring for people we don’t know, at least before we’ve been given a reason. Our comedy is built on this casual disdain for the other guy. We share anecdotes about “idiots” we ran into earlier. ...

With people we already know, we can easily forgive mistakes. Strangers, however, enter our lives already under suspicion. We disqualify entire human beings from the possibility of our respect or forgiveness the moment they fail to use a turn signal, or wear a baseball cap in the wrong kind of eating establishment.

[Shane]

Thanks for your thoughtful response, MMM365. It's interesting to hear what other families are doing and their reasoning why. In the end, it's up to each of us as individuals to decide how, when and why we will give or not give of our resources to people or causes we determine are in need. Reading other people's thoughts on the subject helps me to make my own decisions on what to do.

[human]

I guess we shouldn't donate to cancer research, cause you know all those people getting cancer should just change their behaviours. What a ridiculous thread. Don't want to give to charity then don't, why do you feel the need to justify this choice? And cue all the comments about smoking and lung cancer and proper diet etc.

[MMM365]

I would add that this is not something we've done our entire lives.  It's something we have worked towards and is not the end of our story.  When considering how much we have, I feel a responsibility of stewardship for those resources to make the world a better place (and to enjoy the resources a little bit!). 

I've searched, but there really isn't a philanthropy/charitable giving forum online which discusses the exact question you asked.  I appreciate your bringing it up.

To human, I don't think that Shane is saying that we shouldn't give to people because they are completely responsible for their own actions.  From my reading, I get the sense that OP is searching, learning, and trying to figure out how philanthropy should be present in his life.  However, he is candid about his concerns, which are absolutely reasonable. 

Thanks for your thoughtful response, MMM365. It's interesting to hear what other families are doing and their reasoning why. In the end, it's up to each of us as individuals to decide how, when and why we will give or not give of our resources to people or causes we determine are in need. Reading other people's thoughts on the subject helps me to make my own decisions on what to do.

[Villanelle]

This is the sister theory to "I don't give money to homeless people because they may just go spend it on drugs and alcohol".  What if they waste it?

But the real question is "what if they don't?" I would rather help someone who squanders that help than avoid helping--when I can and it is no real hardship--who truly needs it.  Not helping a guy who is literally starving is far worse than a few of my dollars buying someone a hit of whatever the use.

Of course it is all a continuum.  I don't give every possible dollar.  But I don't rationalize away any or most giving, simply because some of it might not end up being a true good use of those dollars. 

[Shane]

I guess we shouldn't donate to cancer research, cause you know all those people getting cancer should just change their behaviours. What a ridiculous thread. Don't want to give to charity then don't, why do you feel the need to justify this choice? And cue all the comments about smoking and lung cancer and proper diet etc.

Happy Holidays to you and your family @human! :)

[Shane]

What do you guys think? Do you earmark a certain percentage of your income for charity? If so, how much? Do you believe that the money you are giving to charity is helping? If so, what metrics do you use to measure the success of your chosen charities? Have you ever given to a charity that eventually ceased to exist because there was no longer a need for its services? If so, was that seen as a good thing or bad?

Above is the last paragraph from my OP. A few people have responded to my request that they share information on what they believe is right and what they are doing in their lives to make the world a better place. I feel like we can all learn from hearing ideas from other people.

Instead of sharing their own beliefs and practices, some posters have chosen to spend their time and energy attacking my ideas about food banks or whatever. I find the former types of responses much more interesting and useful. Thanks to those of you who posted constructive ideas and explanations of what you believe and how you're contributing to charity or not and why.

[Kitsune]

Also relevant to this discussion: https://www.facebook.com/sharon.astyk/posts/10153795117553373

Look - 'help' can be a long-term fix or a band-aid solution. But to argue that we shouldn't apply a band-aid, especially in the face of hunger and suffering, deserves extreme questioning.

[justajane]

I struggle as well, Shane. For me, my potential miserliness (and yes, I do often use my reservations as an excuse not to give at all) centers around CEO compensation. I usually do not like what I find when I go to a site to look up salaries of non-profit executives.

Once  in a while I get bothered or concerned by the questions/problems you pose. I worry about fraud too, i.e. people availing themselves of charity who really don't need it. But, as someone said to me once, you have to "help" the moochers to also help those truly in need. It can be very hard for a charity to know which is which.

I find as I get older that I am far less likely to help those who give me a sob story about their broken down vehicle or whatever. I've directly seen too many instances of this being a lie. Instead, I'll give that money to charities that I know do good work.

[jeninco]

To answer the question at the end of the OP:
Yes, we give 1-3% (I know, it's not much) of our taxable income. We donate to a variety of groups, including the local food share organization and homeless shelter (we can argue about slippery slopes, but at the end of the day I want all the kids in my county to eat, and most of the adults as well), local and national branches of Planned Parenthood (to help provide health- and reproductive-care to women who need it, and to help lobby for continuing access to all forms of women's healthcare, and I can't believe we're still needing to lobby for this in 2015!), a local cycling advocacy group, a local nature-education group who does great work, and a few national and international groups (SUWA -- we have spent a fair bit of time in the canyons of Utah, Finca, MSF, Habitat, some years Heifer ...  I think there are a couple more I can't remember off the top of my head.) And our local NPR station.

We try to give to groups for which (1) we believe in the mission, (2) we think they do a reasonably effective job,  and (3) we try for a mix of local and international groups -- there are plenty of problems around here, but $100 can buy a lot of mosquito nets for use in Africa.

We  try to make sure the kids at least know what we're doing (sometimes they help us organize) and why -- and they've travelled to other parts of the world, so they have some idea what conditions people live in in, for example, shantytowns in South Africa. Probably this next year we'll start doing more volunteering -- we're all old enough to organize boxes for the Food Share warehouse, for example. And my kids do a fair bit of helping out other people, especially shoveling for elderly neighbors in the winter.

I have a friend who drives around with a box of granola bars in her car at all times and hands them out at street corners. If I drove more (and biked less) I would probably do that as well... We try to teach the kids "you don't know another person's history" as a way to discouraging snap judgements about someone else's character.

[Villanelle]

I struggle as well, Shane. For me, my potential miserliness (and yes, I do often use my reservations as an excuse not to give at all) centers around CEO compensation. I usually do not like what I find when I go to a site to look up salaries of non-profit executives.

Once  in a while I get bothered or concerned by the questions/problems you pose. I worry about fraud too, i.e. people availing themselves of charity who really don't need it. But, as someone said to me once, you have to "help" the moochers to also help those truly in need. It can be very hard for a charity to know which is which.

I find as I get older that I am far less likely to help those who give me a sob story about their broken down vehicle or whatever. I've directly seen too many instances of this being a lie. Instead, I'll give that money to charities that I know do good work.

Most of my adult working career has been at various non-profits.  I've seen overpaid people (of which I was certainly not one!) and inefficiencies.  I think you have to accept that not every penny you donate, no matter how great the cause or organization, is going to be used for what you consider the absolute best purposes or in the most efficient way.  Even if 50% of your donation is wasted, that means 50% does some good.  Considering we are often talking life and death situations, or nearly that dire, I readily accept that.  To not give because only 50% of the lives that could be are actually saved (or only 50% of the kids vaccinated, or 50% or the animals rescued, or 50% of the prisoners give job training, or... )  that's 100% more than if I'd given nothing.  So while efficiency is important, I don't see some inefficiency as a reason to do nothing.

Also, I think one's intent speaks to one's character far more directly than the outcome.  I try to do good, I make a good faith effort to try and ensure the organization does good and important work and spends my and other's money wisely, and then I sort of release it to the universe to do with my choice as it sees fit.  That I've *tried* is what speaks to me as a person.  I want to be someone who tries, rather than someone who does nothing simply because there's no perfect choice.  I generally hate the saying, but "don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good" applies here.  Organizations will waste money.  They will serve people who use them as a crutch, or who aren't what some people would consider "worthy".  But they will also spend money on great things, and serve people who truly have no other options and who use the service as a last resort, and who make every effort to no longer need assistance.  And those are the things that matter, and on which I focus. 

I think most people who focus on inefficiencies and "undeserving" people (which I put in quotes because it really makes me comfortable, especially when it's based on almost no real knowledge of the person or their situation) and patterns of dependency do so to make them feel better about simply not giving at all.  Instead, I accept that those situations exist, and see them as the price of helping those who actually need and deserve help. 

[crispy]

Honestly,  I am a bit cynical by nature so I do understand where you are coming from.  That being said, we do give and we try to be an example to our kids.  If you have a problem giving to a charity, give in other ways.  One thing we do is bring a hot meal to people who are sick, dealing with loss, or just having a rough time.  That is something small and tangible that my kids see.  We also give to things we have a personal connection to like our church and to friends who run an orphanage in Africa. 

I also work for a non-profit so I see first hand the power that donations have on impacting lives.  Not everyone I work with is dramatically changed, but some of them do make lasting, meaningful changes.  For example, I helped an older gentleman a few months ago create a resume, get a certification he needed, and basically just listened to him.  He was a gentleman with a lot of pride who felt defeated be circumstances to the point that he burst into tears in my office.  He stopped by a couple of weeks ago to let me know he had found a job and that things were going well for him and just to say thanks. 

Just today, I had someone come in asking if I could help her create a resume.  She said that two different people had told her to come because "Ms. Crispy" would help.  The two people who told her to come were gentleman who had each spent over 20 years and prison and just got out in the last year.  I was able to help both of them get FT jobs which I hope will help them stay out of the system. 

All that to say, just because a non-profit helps people who may not need it or even deserve it, doesn't mean that the organization shouldn't be supported.  In my professional life, I don't rate people as deserving or not - if they come to my organization and want to be helped, they will be helped.  Our goal is to help people find jobs and get on their feet.

In my personal life, I try to be wise about how I give and who give to.  I am always mindful that I can't care about someone's situation more than they do.  I always try to help people when I can, but I tend not to help people who repeatedly make bad choices and never seem to learn from them.

[Sailor Sam]

What do you guys think? Do you earmark a certain percentage of your income for charity? If so, how much? Do you believe that the money you are giving to charity is helping? If so, what metrics do you use to measure the success of your chosen charities? Have you ever given to a charity that eventually ceased to exist because there was no longer a need for its services? If so, was that seen as a good thing or bad?

I think charity is important; both time and money. So I earmark 7% of my gross salary for charity, which equals around 7k per year. Long term, I'd like to ramp up to 10% of gross, or 10k per year. Though I admit that I'm letting raises negate the true effect the increase puts on my pocket money.

I do believe that the money I donate is helping. I don't have a particular metric I use to judge the success of my chosen charities. I feel pretty strongly that people shouldn't go hungry, and that kids shouldn't get cancer. So I donate to a local food bank, and to St Jude's. I live very close to the food bank, and I frequently transit past the people who line up outside the door. I see people leaving with bags of food. Success enough for me.

I have never given to a charity that has ceased to exist because the need has disappeared.  I, too would be extremely interested in hearing stories from institutions that bootstrapped themselves out of business.

[Vanguards and Lentils]

Since I was critical of OP's argument, I'll say that my giving this year was 4.6% from a net salary of <$25k, part of that to my church and part to a global health charity. I'll feel more comfortable upping that % when I'm earning more. But I feel like if I make an excuse not to give now, then I'll only get better at creating excuses later in life when I have more potential to do good. I also don't think it's realistic to believe my spending habits will drastically change pre-FIRE and after, so I'm trying to get in the habit now. I'm all for effective altruism and will probably continue giving to international causes which the researchers find effective, rather than local ones (with the exception of church).

[Shane]

Thank you to everyone who has posted recently with details about your beliefs and strategies for giving or not in some cases. These are the kinds of stories I was hoping to elicit from members of the group. I feel like I learn a lot and often change my mind on subjects after I have read eloquent posts by some of the MMM forum members.

In hindsight, maybe I was too careless in the way I threw together the OP with examples that were controversial and unnecessarily provocative. It probably would've been better if I had concentrated the OP on asking for opinions from the group rather than sharing my opinion to start off with.

It's totally fine with me if any of you disagree with the skepticism I shared on charity in the OP. If you do disagree, I'd be glad to hear your arguments against what I said, and if they make sense to me, I'll gladly change my views. As I said, I've done that many times before. Sometimes I start reading a thread and think I know what I think about a subject, and they half way through reading everyone else's posts, I change my mind. If I do change my mind on something, I'll have no problems admitting that I was wrong.

I agree with what many posters have said about not worrying too much about whether 100% of any money we give is actually going to people who really need it. I'm willing to accept a certain amount of inefficiency as the cost of getting help to those who really do need the help. 

[James]

Giving to charity it easy. Finding the appropriate charity for you can be very difficult. Or it can fall into your lap.


I happened to be in Haiti during the big earthquake there. I met a medical student who was on his first day of clinical while helping at a local clinic (I bandaged, stitched, and splinted, better help came later). This medical student stuck by my side, getting me the equipment, local anesthetic, sutures, etc that I needed. We kept in touch, and when his financing fell through for medical school, I started helping out. Today he has finished his residency and will soon start private practice. Without my help Haiti would have 1 less doctor in the country. (He also just had a daughter and I am the godfather, and I was invited and went to his wedding about 18 months ago.) Once when I sent him an extra $500 to help him live above what he needed for tuition, instead he used most of the money to fund elementary school for kids in the neighborhood where he grew up.


Find your own charity or mission. Maybe it's a local cause you support. Maybe it's a person you can mentor and encourage. Maybe it's a student who wants to go to school and doesn't have the money and you know will be diligent in their studies. Maybe it's something big, maybe it's something small. Maybe you find it today, maybe you find it tomorrow. Setting aside money and being open to the charity you find to support doesn't require you to suspend your doubt about the value of the charity you don't support. You can find the right charity over time if you put yourself out there and are open to the needs you encounter. Invest your time and effort in being where you will find those truly needing charity. I don't know where it will be in your experience, but I do know it will come to you eventually. Don't rush it, but also don't get jaded, and don't worry if you support a charity that doesn't work out to be the best. Start small and learn over time. We need critical thinkers who support the charities who are doing the right thing. It is just like capitalism, there should be creative destruction within the charity organizations, with those doing quality work getting the support they need, and those who do not failing to get funded. But that takes effort, funneling your money to those organizations or people who are doing it right. It's not easy, but it's so damn necessary and so damn beneficial.


We support other charities, and I regret some charity spending, but having worked hard to find good places to spend some good money I can honestly say it's a feeling you can't get any other way. Giving fills you up in a way you can't get otherwise, it's not just for them, it's for you. So don't give up, find what works for you, and until then set aside for you and your daughter what you can to help others in need. You may not feel it now, but eventually you will find the right cause and be forever grateful you did.

[oldladystache]

"don't feed the bears" - If you feed them they become dependent on handouts and then they are dangerous.

I haven't seen many charities that I believe really do good. I don't know of any that do significant good (in my opinion).

I do donate to a few charities, but I seriously wonder if it's a good idea.

I have volunteered a large amount of time to a couple charities. I decided they were in the long run just feeding the bears.

I really don't know what to do about it.

One thing I've decided is that just spending my money is probably helping as much or more than donating it. The storekeeper gets a share, and the manufacturer, and the store clerk, and the factory worker. The more I spend the more they get.

[Mr Dorothy Dollar]

I disagree with the premise that more harm is created from charity, more specifically what your ideology would call hand-outs.

1) There are people who are truly needy and will not be able to fix their situation (single mother of five - oh she i a widow if that really maters. It should not matter because her children need help and are faultless. It is morally wrong to want to punish the children.).

2) The idea that getting a hand-out harms society would mean that if everyone of these poor downtrodden souls needed a job they could get one. That is simply not the case. Further, would you want some of these people to have a job? Would it do more harm to society by having them all have jobs? Some people should not be in the work force. Heck some of the people in the work force should not be in it. Allowing them to subsist on charity is more humane than throwing them to the wolves.

3) If charity is truly the awesomely awesome then go for it. After all there is all that charity money around to be had. 

4)  Look towards countries where charity and social nets do not exist and see what harm would be done without charity. People will do what is needed to survive which may not be deadbeats getting a job (they will cut down public land trees, steal, poop on the street, over fish the river). I would prefer to have shelters for the homeless to reduce poop on the street and dead bodies in the cold. I would prefer soup kitchens to environmental degradation by farming in the commons or over fishing rivers. 

5) Poor people getting meager sums are less likely to batter you for $20 than a broke angry person.

My decision to like hand-outs is a trade off between wasted potential (some have very little potential) and other factors (moral obligation, security, environmental protection, sanitary).