Kristine, you stated some stuff, I responded. If it makes you feel any better, I can’t understand why someone would want to be on the left side of the political spectrum.

ChrisD, in the US, government-run housing is filthy, drug-infested, and crime-ridden. While the public housing the the Netherlands may be great, I don’t understand why someone else should be forced to pay my rent (via subsidized housing). But, that’s just me. Making others pay my rent via tax subsidies isn’t my idea of a good life, but again, that’s just me.

Different countries have different feelings about this. Places like Sweden and the Netherlands pay high taxes and get a lot from the government. It evens out society and a flat society seems to be a happy society. Personally I prefer this kind of model.
Secondly even if you dislike government and feel that everyone should do everything themselves, governments are actually pretty good for organising public goods, things like roads that everyone wants but which won’t work if you depend on voluntary subscriptions as the system will be taken over by freeloaders.

Lastly Social housing has not worked in the UK and apparently the US, but in Sweden and the Netherlands it is very successful and people will go on years long waiting lists in order to get an affordable apartment in a nice part of town that would otherwise be unaffordable. (Luckily the not-so-nice parts of town are not dangerous, just boring). I have visited a friend in such social housing and the apartment was lovely (riverside with a boat included in the rent).

Your opinions are valid, influential, and as far as I can tell always well-considered. Noting that, I’m asking you to please reconsider using low overhead to define an effective charity.

Johanna’s first comment regarding what “overhead” really means to charities and nonprofits is spot-on: it means evaluation, infrastructure, and quality and quantity of staff. Charity Navigator actually stated that “overhead ratios and executive salaries are useless for evaluating a nonprofit’s impact.” This is a PDF of that press release: http://www.philanthropyaction.com/documents/Worst_Way_to_Pick_A_Charity_Dec_1_2009.pdf

I’m not sure if you’re familiar with Dan Pallotta’s blog at the Harvard Business Review. He makes some very important points about the assumptions funders make, expecting nonprofits to save the world at bargain rates and with laughable infrastructure. I don’t agree with everything he says but I think his points need to be considered: http://blogs.hbr.org/pallotta/

Personally, I have worked most of my short career in nonprofits because I believe that it’s important, worthwhile, good work. I also feel that our hands are tied by such ridiculous funding structures and expectations that I actually have some ethical qualms with supporting the sector through my employment there.

But just to note, I never said the military was stretched thin providing aid. It is the wars. But if they had enough recruits, they would not be recycling spent soldiers and using the reserves as a staple. We would not be paying massive bucks to hard-to-hold-accountable privatized agencies (mercenaries), which we are.

And not paying a living wage for work is immoral, any way you slice it, even if desperate people line up for miles for the jobs. It’s the freemarket downside:conscience-free opportunism. Please watch the documentary film “The Corporation”.

I do not feel guilty about my good fortune, but neither is my head in the sand regarding the effect my lifestyle has on people outside my own country.

A big part of the reason why rich countries have achieved such wealth, and why we residents of rich countries have such great earning potential, is that we’ve been spewing carbon dioxide into the atmosphere unchecked for the past 150 years. The consequences of fossil-fuel-based industrialization are coming back to bite us, and they’re biting people in poorer countries even harder. Changing weather patterns mean that subsistence farmers are having more and more trouble making ends meet. People who can’t afford to move elsewhere are in danger of being flooded out of their homes, or even their whole countries.

So that’s a very real sense in which rich nations’ wealth has been achieved at the expense of poor nations. And we haven’t adequately paid to compensate for the damage we’ve done (and are still doing), and we should. And if that payment needs to happen at the governmental level, I think that’s appropriate.

Unfortunately, the way development aid actually ends up working, in the US at least, still poses a lot of problems. When aid is in the form of US-grown food or US-manufactured goods, for example, that helps US farmers and manufacturers, but it harms developing-world farmers and manufacturers by artificially lowering the prices they can get for their goods. So that’s a reason to continue to donate to NGOs that don’t have to answer to lobbyists and can therefore give more appropriate forms of aid.

I started with environmental groups that actually buy land to protect it rather than begging Congress to pass laws or sponsoring information campaigns. Now I give to groups that work with the current owners to encourage them to continue protective treatment of the land and to learn from them.

I give to microlenders that help desperately poor people buy things (like sewing machines) that help them start a business to support themselves. And when that money is paid back, it is lent to more people.

I looked for a group that would make birth control methods available to more people but was careful to choose methods that would fit in with the culture and that was just making it available, not pressuring anyone. Letting people have only as many kids as they actually want helps with poverty, the environment, and having happy kids.

This means I am giving to groups I know nothing about. I am funding things I would be terrible at doing myself and about which it is too depressing for me to even want to become very informed about. None of the things I support are even local. I may be making mistakes with my money, and I don’t really know how much I’m helping, but I’m willing to accept those risks for the chance to make a difference to those who most need it.

It’s not easy telling people that I don’t want to support my alma mater or the police force—which, the way they ask is what they make you say—but I can remember that starving people and choking environments need more help than most college students and police officers. I remember that we all have different priorities, and if we all give according to our priorities, than everything important should get some help, right?

On the other hand, in addition to the 10% I give to the needy as outlined above, I also give back to those who have helped or are helping me such as public TV, public radio, my neighborhood association, and the local wildflower center. And it has occurred to me to spend an additional 1% on selfish things–things I would like to help me in the future such groups that work toward more bike lanes and sidewalks and a group that wants to build a planetarium.

Those people line up for jobs when manufacturers come to town. They operate on the same principle you do: Offer me more money than I can make elsewhere and I’ll work for you. People living on a subsistence level are more than happy to take a job that pays $2/hr, because they used to make $0.50/hr farming dirt.

The United States uses up a large share of resources, yes. Why? Because we pay for those resources. We do not steal them; we don’t take them by force; we don’t cheat others out of those resources. We say “here’s how much money we will pay for your goods,” and other countries agree to sell those goods to us.

“Destroy the most habitat indirectly” is a wonderful way of saying “we can’t actually measure it.” As I was told by a long time auditor – If it isn’t written down, it didn’t happen. Let’s see some actual data to that claim. Until then, I’m going to continue “destroying” the habitat of my pasture to make my garden, because I do love my tomatoes.

Katrina? Here’s the rub: A government is filled with nitwit bureaucrats who care more about checking a box than actually helping people. Private companies (like the dreaded WalMart, and Home Depot) were there helping before government organizations could finish filing a travel request.

Finally, in regards to the military. They are stretched thin by fighting two wars. They are not stretched thin by providing humanitarian aid. There are lots of recruits (at least prior to our current president assuming control, at which point I stopped hearing about it). The military never gets as many people as it wants, but it gets as many as it needs; that’s the way it’s always been, and it’ll stay that way since that the way it is.

There is a right and wrong answer. The wrong answer is to depend on government to take care of you. People don’t want to live in government housing. People don’t want to live on social security income. People don’t want to live with government healthcare in the form of medicare and medicaid. They live with these things because they have to, not because they want to. The right answer is to look to yourself and your community. If the answers lead you to donate money to sub-Saharan Africa, so be it. If you’re driven to donate to the soup kitchen down the street, go for it.

But don’t let someone else’s jealousy of your success make you feel guilty about the quality of your life.

The comment above about “NEVER [giving to] human beings” based on the helplessness of animals ignores the fact that many charities go to people who are literally incapable of helping themselves–World Vision being a prime example. I love animals, too and I give to animal charities as well as human charities–the more humans being helped can mean more to help the helpless animals as well as helpless people.

It’s difficult to determine in every case whether the money is always going somewhere. I can be cynical about the guy on the corner with a sign because he ‘might’ have this as a full-time job and he’s just lazy. The fact is: he might not. Is it worth it to me to not give this guy a couple of bucks or buy him a sandwich because I’m arrogant enough to ‘know for sure’ he’ll use it for booze? No. But even if he does that doesn’t mean this other guy will. Cynicism can be a major hindrance to genuine help.

You had me up to “the US can provide an immediate response to disasters due to our military”. The military is hard up for recruits these days, and manpower is stretched thin. I still do not, and never will, understand Katrina. We’ve had swifter response in foreign lands, and our own people died for lack of water not even 100 miles from the nearest slurpee dispensing 7-11. I know that did not fall under the auspice of the military, but FEMA. I guess that just struck a chord, and I hope we react better in the future…oil spill?

We have enough people here who need help. I would prefer the government spend the majority of it charity spending to help its citizens. Private donations can bear the larger portion of international giving. But yet, I am also conflicted on that, as we use up the largest share of the world’s resources, destroy the most habitat indirectly, and do it all on the backs of the people in poorer nations for our cheap goods. Not to say that I do not enjoy being a Roman, I do. I am grateful for my accident of birth every day.

I guess I am trying to say there is no right or wrong answer. Tithing is a good tradition, no matter where you put it.

T

You can send your own money to the third world. I’m sure they’ll appreciate it. I’ll send my money to SoldiersAngels, thank you very much.

It’s awfully cavalier of you to decide where and how other people should spend their money. Last time I checked, you didn’t have any impact on my skill in earning that money, which means you shouldn’t get a vote in how I spend it. If I wish to hoard it all, that’s my right as the earner. If I wish to give away every dime, that’s also my right.

As for the US giving, the US gives far more than other countries, both as traditional foreign aid, and as voluntary charitable contributions from private citizens. On top of that, the US can provide an immediate response to disasters due to our military. Take the Haitian earthquake. While all your money was appreciated, the Navy can set up an aircraft carrier to supply 400,000 gallons of clean water, best-in-class trauma centers, and an airfield so that all those emergency supplies can actually make it to the people who need it most.

Let me put it another way: I don’t think you have the aptitude to direct my charitable contributions. I’ll put my money (that I earned) where I wish, instead of you forcing me to pay for things that have no value to me (sorry to tell you, but sub-Saharan Africa isn’t even a blip on my charity radar screen).

And do not feel guilty about all the other needy people, because they are everywhere.

Unless you’re loaded, you can only give so much

Now that I have become disabled and unable to even buy groceries, I can’t give anything to anyone and it drives me nuts. People say well, donate your time, but I am stretched to the limit with my time already and I’m not taking care of my own self properly. So now I just say, “I’m unable to donate at this time” and let it go at that.

Like you, if someone tries to guilt me into giving, I will more than likely not even consider their cause. And when people ask me to donate food when I don’t have any in my own house, that upsets me terribly.

I’ve learned I have to be my own favorite charity. It sucks because I want to give, give, give, but I have to take care of myself and if there is money left…then I decide who to give it to. Guilt is NOT a good motivator (even though it worked for our mothers.) ;)

I’m trying to use my grocery shopping habits (taking advantage of buy1 get 1 free and other deals) to buy extra food to donate to a local food pantry.

There are several charities locally that run thrift stores and so that’s where I take my stuff when I want to get rid of it.

Basically I like helping people and I know I’ve been lucky in that I’ve always had family to help support me when I needed it but I could have easily been someone who had to rely on disability from the government or needed assistance from a charity so I enjoy giving and helping.