Rethinking the ten percent charity rule.

At what point do we follow the rule we ought give ten percent of our income to charity? I believe that the idea we give ten percent of our income to charity should only apply if you have no debt and make more than what you need for living expenses. Then again do people need some of the things that they buy? Who really needs a cell phone? A basic cell phone would be fine. But as a society do we talk too much? We need to as a society start thinking in terms of need vs. want. Then we will have enough to survive plus some to give to charity. But on the other hand we might question whether or not the ten percent rule is still valid in light if the fact that government offers a host of social programs as a social safety net. When there was no social safety net then it was imperative that people give to charity, since charities were all that existed to help the poor and the destitute.

So if ten percent went to help the poor how much does government spend on social programs? For the sake of the argument if the average tax rate is around twenty percent which is often spent on social programs. So we have to ask do we give too much to charity? With the government safety net the poor and the destitute have a higher standard of living than most poor people in other countries of the world. Thus in my opinion the biblical role of charity is no longer relevant as long as the current safety net exists.

We might look at another issue of the safety net, which is does the safety net get abused? The undeniable answer is yes! There is no incentive for people to look for work somehow, when you have a government willing to give hand outs. People find its easy to lie to government agencies and defraud the system. There is no incentive for people to find work when government gives out food stamps for an unlimited amount of time. If a two or three year limit were placed on how long people could collect assistance then people would be willing to look for work all the sooner in order to pay for the food. What is needed is a higher level social auditing to ensure that the poor are not wasting their money on things that they don't need vs. the things that they do need. If a person asks for a hand out from the government then they ought to be willing to loose their right to seek pleasure through luxuries that cost more than they can afford.

It seems to me that if there is too much charity in a society then certain character traits that were once valued in members of society are lost and society as a whole faces increased costs associated with those lost values. For instance when America was first settled there was an expectation that all members of society would work hard, be frugal savers, have pride before taking charity. This is in contrast to the changes that have taken place over the last forty years. With the increase/proliferation of welfare programs society has taken away any desire or want by the individual for a better life if they live in poverty. It was a mistaken hope that welfare programs would lift people out of poverty. But the reality is the limitless welfare programs take away vale/incentive that a person might want to get out of poverty.

Furthermore the endless welfare programs have a part of society that is lazy, wasteful with little pride in their lives. Also the system encourages vices, and abuse such as fraud, and lying since people feel they don't have to work or not work as hard to get the same benefits of society as those who do work and have to save for those luxuries that they cannot afford. Therefore we as a society need to change our view of welfare programs as being a hand up and not a hand out. Reforms need to occur so that people receive government assistance of any type for a limited time. We need stricter guidelines, as well as tougher enforcement for who qualifies for government disability. Also people need to be reminded that Social Security is a retirement supplement, and should not be thought of as the primary means for retirement income. Only after we as a society have changed our views, can we perhaps return to a nation of frugal savers and industrious hard workers. 

Eric.............