Why don't you help others?

[trex]

trex, it may be helpful to set a positive example and tell us how much you give to charity each year?

Actually it wouldn't help since my current situation is unique compared to most and isn't relevant to those earning and having to pay for their daily necessities as well. 100% of what I make in my current job goes to help others which isn't possible for most.

Actually most of the folks on this forum don't spend money frivolously, and most give a good amount to charitable causes. You may get better results addressing forums where the big spenders hang out.

It is a question that applies to all of us. $10 you spend on anything could go to save a child's life, but we choose not to - that includes me as I could do more as well. If that child was right there when we were making the purchase, most people would help the child in my opinion. Without the child there, most people would buy the sweater. I'm just curious why that is?

Also, regarding the sweater. What if I'm buying a sweater so I can turn the heat down so I can spend less on my gas bill, so I will have more money for charitable causes?

The sweater was an anology for anything being purchased.

[trex]

Americans are very generous in personal donations and gov't donations.

I believe this is true as well. It wasn't my question. Just because we are generous doesn't mean that chosing to buy something means that a child will die somewhere.

As for just giving half, whom do you suggest it go to? And, there are plenty of corrupt organizations promising help that does not arrive.

That is nothing more than a poor excuse. It doesn't take much work to find a good charity that can help greatly.

[trex]

I am not sure I understand the whole picture you are asking us and it seems your intent or motives of your question is to have us argue a random point without the whole picture. Your message seems incomplete to me unless you assume all of us do not "give to others"?

Not at all. All I'm saying is that if you buy anything, that money could go to save a life. If the child was right next to the thing you were purchasing, you would choose to save the child. But since she isn't we buy all kinds of stuff. Why do people do this?

Are you trying to say we should give more than what we have and leave nothing for ourselves? Yes we are human and Americans have surplus money that we help others as well as treat ourselves. But at the same time we are in a position that we can help others since we are not in the dire situations that some others that may going through (A victim is helpless in helping other helpless). We should strive to help others as much as we can but for an example if someone was saving coupons and watching for sales on groceries to stockpile to save money and prepare for future considered greedy when another person has not a single can of food in his/her cabinet? If not sharing yes that can be greedy, but should the person who stockpiled give away all his/her food simply because he/she was preventing food shortage and saving on cost of groceries?

Did you ever see the movie Schindler's List? At the end he cries out that his ring could have saved another person if he had just given it away. Each of us could say the same thing with every purchase we make.

[trex]

Behind those two kids are two more dying of HIV. Behind them are two more living in poverty. Behing them are two more needing an education.

Point is, I give to charity every paycheck, but I can't give to everyone. I/we work hard for our money, so buying that $20 sweater, knowing that I already give, does not make me feel guily one bit.

So what your saying is that because we can't save everyone, it's OK to not save the ones we can? That doesn't make sense to me.

[trex]

That's exactly what I was thinking a little while ago. None of us can possibly give to everyone in need. Even Bill Gates would be penniless if he tried.

I think all who are able should do what they can to help those who are in need, but we each need to set a giving limit that we are comfortable with. Could I have helped feed the hungry instead of buying the computer on which I'm typing this message? I suppose so, but that would have been beyond what I'm comfortable with. Sure, most of us here live nice lives that could be a lot simpler and cheaper if we really wanted them to be. That would allow us to save more and give more. Maybe we should. Who knows?

That is the essence of my question. We know we should. If the person was right there we would. But since she isn't, we don't. I want to know why this is the case so maybe we can make changes to address this.

[Snave]

While I do give to charities, I also believe in helping myself. I hope to never be a burden to my children when I am old. Therefore, I save diligently for retirement.

[Snave]

I try to give often - there will always be a charity that I wish I could give more too. However, the reality is that it is not possible to help everyone.

[Taribor]

So what your saying is that because we can't save everyone, it's OK to not save the ones we can? That doesn't make sense to me.

No, what I am saying is I give to the charities and the causes that are important to me and it is part of my budget, but I cannot give to every cause out there and I don't accept guilt trips from those who think I am bad for spending money on material items rather than giving it all away (not that you suggesting I do).

[disneysteve]

That is the essence of my question. We know we should. If the person was right there we would. But since she isn't, we don't. I want to know why this is the case so maybe we can make changes to address this.

It isn't that simple, though. There are millions of needy people in the world. What if every store you went into had them lined up near the register? Would you buy nothing but the bare essentials you needed to survive and give everything else to the poor and infirm? I certainly wouldn't. That isn't how I would want to live. Does that make me a bad person? I don't think so. Just makes me human. I don't think I'd be able to maintain the motivation to work as hard as I do if I wasn't getting to enjoy the fruits of my labor.

[getforfree]

Millions of people die each year due to lack of clean water. All it takes is $10 to give clean water to a person for an entire year. If you walked into a store planning to buy a sweater for $20 and when you did, there were also two young children who would die without clean water by the sweater, I assume you would forgo the sweater and give the girls the $10 for clean water (I hope). Knowing that every time you buy something, you could save a life instead, why do you spend money on other things and not save those lives?

Why? Because I work way to hard for my money, and succrufise way to much, to be able to make those money. I am okay working and sucrifising my sleep, my health and all that for my family and my kids. But doing all that for somebody else? No way! If I wanted to have less money or give less to my kids, I would just work less and spend more time with my kids.

If you look at it this way. Most people have these choices:
*work an hour overtime at my work and give my earned money for that hour to charity
*work that same hour overtime and buy something nice for your family or your kids or put it towards your saving goals
*don't work overtime and spend that time resting or doing something fun with your family

I would more likely choose second option, maybe the third one if I am very tired or don't feel well, but never the first one. I think every person is obligated to take care of their own family first, and untill that is met, don't even worry about helping somebody outside.

And like they saying you have to teach your kids to share, I am not even going to try that. It should be absolutely up to them to make that decision. If they want to share they can, but it they don't feel like they don;t have to.

Usually even the most greediest people share with the ones they love.

[cschin4]

I want to know why this is the case so maybe we can make changes to address this.

And the essence of your change is what? More forced taxation? Requiring people to "donate"? Sorry, this is just an excuse for more socialism.
As for putting people on a guilt trip for enjoying the fruits of your labor. You are off base. People work for themselves and their families. That is the true motivation to work and also a noble one as well.

[Gruntina]

Did you ever see the movie Schindler's List? At the end he cries out that his ring could have saved another person if he had just given it away. Each of us could say the same thing with every purchase we make.

True... Even if he had he used it to save another person, still he had somehow must came up with the ring. Just the guilt factor for not using something he already had to further provide more help in a dire situation that he was in. If he had never had that ring, he would not have felt guilty but then again he would not have had the extra chance to save another life. He just didn't react to that thought in time.

Missionaries that we have around the world are sponsored from those who have money. They do the ultimate physical sacrificed giving up their life to help others but still it could not be done without people back home providing funds and communication. Don't underestimate a small gift in disguise when sometimes it is a big thing.

[Thrif-t]

I've got to say I've been trying to help more people in my area that have met dire circumstances....like the mother died no life insurance, father needs help with the kids...you see in the obits to donate to some bank memorial fund. I feel my money goes straight to the person in need not an organization that takes a cut for overhead. So far this year we've donated to the family of a police officer that was shot by a criminal and left a young family and to a high school classmate who died of cancer at the young age of 41 and left 3 small children...I'd love to be able to help everyone but can't so I will continue to help those in need where I can.

[PrincessPerky]

What if we all gave up all the exras..no more luxury TVs..no more fancy cars...no more eating out? No more tenth sweater to fill the closet.We could then give that money to those in need.

And we could also watch the economy spiral down..no TV no need for the fancy TV salesman..or cable company...no fancy car, less car salesmen, less mechanics...ect. No eating out, no waitress, busboy, cook, hostess, manager...nor the builders to build the restaurants...No more tenth sweater no more 'closet organizer' business (or 'self storage' places). you get the idea.

So now we have a huge unemployed population and not to many left making any money to give.....I am too lazy to do a complete economic math model, but I am fairly certain if everyone started giving more than around 10% the economy would down turn so bad the resulting donations would be LESS than the current habits of Americans......

Disclaimer...I am not suggesting spending oneself into debt helps those in need in any way...I am simply saying some spending on self/family helps one make more. (DS's computer that he uses to resell ebay stuff comes to mind)