In today's electronic society money travels instantly for little cost. Thus, rather than help the poor and desperate only in America, I can reach people in Africa who don't even have clean water to drink. I don't mean to imply that the poor in America are any less deserving, simply that poverty in America is quite different from poverty in Africa. Instead of helping American poor "get back on their feet" with my service, I could be helping the impoverished in Africa simply survive. For this reason, I feel my efforts should be directed to those in greatest need so the effects of my actions can have the largest impact.
Yet, me personally going over to Africa to help these people seems irresponsible. For example, for the price of a plane ticket to Victoria Falls, Zambia (about $2500 on British Airways) I could hire four people in the country for $600 a year (one and a half times more than the average salary). If I was only traveling to Africa to build a church or do other general service (a.k.a. labor), my money is much better spent enabling and motivating the people already living there to do what needs to be done. If we spend money in America to give people jobs and opportunities, why shouldn't we do the same thing in Africa? In this way, I help those for whom the labor is performed, the wage earners I hire as well as their families, and the country's economy in general.
Besides helping more people, money can also do more things. Money can purify water, install plumbing systems, make mosquito nets, distribute those nets, teach people in their native language, and much more. Though I would love to do these things myself and am very willing to learn how, money does them better. Money can hire people who already have the skills to perform such tasks and will do them more quickly and efficiently than I probably ever could, all in a fraction of the time it takes for me to learn how. In addition, these tasks need not be limited to Africa. My money can also perform needed services here in America as well.
However, several conditions must be fulfilled for money to be able to do all this. Because money is so versatile, it can be used to line the pockets of corrupt government bureaucrats just as easily as it can feed a starving child. Furthermore, I have little control of where my money goes once it leaves my bank account. Unless I actually feed the child myself, I can't know for sure what my money was used for. This is why I don't believe taxes are enough to help the poor. Much of our taxes in the US don't actually help the poor, and the percentage that does is focused on helping the disadvantaged here in our country. Thus, to make the impact I want to make, I need to donate money to trustworthy outside sources beyond what I give in taxes.
Careful readers may have picked up on the second qualifier to my argument. In order to accomplish any of the things I've mentioned previously, money requires someone to directly serve those in need. That is why I've been careful to compare money to my personal service instead of service in general. For my money to be useful, it must allow another, better qualified individual to perform the task I would like to get done. But, we cannot always push the job off to someone else and just give our money to the cause. We would end up with a pile of money just sitting somewhere, drawing the eye of less charitable individuals, not helping anyone at all. Therefore, I myself should be ready and willing to perform direct service to others in my own area given the opportunity.
In the end, I believe that some action besides paying taxes is necessary. Unfortunately, people too often limit such service to direct physical action. To the contrary, in many instances donating one's money instead of one's time is more beneficial to the recipients of the gift. However, Christians should be ready and willing to give both if needed.
(Figures found at britshariways.com and wikipedia.com)
A very interesting perspective on how money does have certain "economies of scale."
ReplyDelete