Giving money to beggars

[liv]

atreic and friends are discussing that middle-class thing of buying beggars the thing they say they need money for (food, transport tickets, shelter) instead of just giving them money. The idea, of course, is that you help people who genuinely need help, but thwart scammers who are just making up a story to get money out of you for presumably unworthy purposes like buying drugs.

I don't think this an entirely stupid or evil way to go about being charitable, but I have reservations. First of all, it seems at best patronizing to decide what a stranger "should" be spending money on. Personally, I'm no fan of mind-altering chemicals; I am not even all that fond of alcohol, and if I ever need to count pennies alcohol is the first thing to be cut from the budget, because I don't enjoy it that much more than tasty soft drinks and I resent spending so much money on vice taxes when I am short anyway. It's not good value-in-terms-of-pleasure for money. I do consider it morally problematic to drink enough alcohol to seriously impair judgement or harm one's own health. I don't smoke, I have no interest in smoking, and I don't approve of smokers inflicting their harmful chemicals on other people around them. But I don't go around moralizing about it at people of my own social class, I recognize that the cost/benefit is different for different people, so why should I set myself up in judgement over beggars? After all, they likely have much harder lives than lots of my friends who consider alcohol an integral part of socializing, or who smoke as a way of taking regular breaks from work and intense social situations. And lots of the pleasures that I think of as cheaper and safer than alcohol and cigarettes aren't readily available to homeless people.

As for illegal drugs, again, I just don't partake, because I have too much to lose, because from what I know of myself I suspect I wouldn't enjoy drug-induced highs or trips very much, because I am scared of becoming addicted, and because the drugs trade causes harm I'd rather not contribute to. Do I think it's a good idea for homeless people to use drugs? No, of course not, for a large number of obvious reasons! But if someone asks me for small change for food and actually goes and spends it on drugs, I'm not sure that that is such a terrible outcome that it's worth expending lots of effort to prevent it. Sure, I don't like being lied to, and I don't want to encourage scammers. And I don't particularly like the idea that my money might be contributing to the profits of drug dealers and propping up the drugs black market. But we're talking very small amounts of money here, and I'm not convinced that it's so much worse in terms of financial support of violence than, say, buying clothes or electronics made in unethical conditions, or even just being part of international finance through things like having some of my salary paid into a pension fund.

The thought occurs to me that in terms of relief of suffering, I might actually be doing more good if my money goes towards buying drugs than something worthy like food or shelter. That money could be helping someone who's addicted, or for whom life is so bleak that they really need the escape, or who is using drugs to self-medicate for major mental health stuff, or could help them to pay off their pimp or drug dealer so that they are less likely to get beaten up. And because our society is really moralistic about drugs, and about poor people spending money on their own pleasure, it's very unlikely that any public programmes or charities are going to be helping people to buy cigarettes or booze, and it's really hard to access support in dealing with an addiction to drugs.

Realistically, if I self-righteously refuse to give money to people who I think might be dishonest, all I'm doing is diverting my help to people who are better at coming up with polished stories. Honest beggars, the kind who don't use any sort of social manipulation to get money out of people, are basically the ones who just sit there on the pavement with signs saying that they're homeless. I'm pretty sure they already get less money than the ones who are willing and able to accost passers-by, and the ones who come up with a plausible story get more than the ones who simply ask for spare change. The whole reason people even tell these stories is precisely because their marks are more willing to support a "good" cause, a worthy recipient, than someone who's merely desperate. And also, so I'm "cleverer" than the scammer, I saw through their trick, aren't I brilliant? Well, I've had quite ridiculous amounts of education, and on top of that I eat regular, nutritious meals and I'm not in imminent danger, it's hardly amazing that can outwit someone living in a highly vulnerable situation who has none of my advantages.

Since squid314 is part of the Less Wrong crowd, the issue of efficient / rational giving comes up in the discussion on his post. OK, so giving 50p to beggars whenever I happen to encounter them is inefficient compared to giving the same money to charities that help homeless and vulnerable people, and definitely inefficient compared to making a reasoned decision about how much I want to give to help indigent people and setting up regular donations. And then we get into, well, is it efficient to give to beggars at all, when even the poorest in the UK are in some ways materially better off than poor people who live in poor countries, not to mention that economic inequalities mean you can help many more developing world poor people for the same money. That's not a calculation I really care about very much, but it may be a reason for some people not to give to beggars at all, no matter whether their stories seem plausible or not.

I think part of the point of giving small change is not that it's perfectly financially efficient, but that sometimes there's some worth in showing a beggar that you see them as a human being, that you care about the hardship they're going through. Making eye contact, listening to them, showing empathy rather than seeing an obstacle or an embarrassment to be avoided. Actually, that's quite a tough thing to do; in some ways it's much easier to say, oh, they're probably just a scammer, they're probably going to spend all the money on drugs. A lot of the reason I often don't give money to beggars is not because of any of the high moral reasons I've listed here, it's because I'm just plain physically scared of unkempt, dirty, often incoherent or erratically behaving strangers. I don't feel proud of myself for being scared; I know intellectually that indigent and mentally unstable people are more likely to be victims of violence than perpetrators. But there you go.

This leads on to another aspect that's been raised in the discussion: why are people in fact more willing to help middle-class people who are stranded and need some cash to get home than actually needy people? Why does the latter have a better chance of sympathy and cash if they pretend to be the former? I think it's partly that, well, if you give the stranded middle-class person (assuming they're genuine and not a scammer) a tenner, you've actually fixed their problem and avoided the misery they're dealing with! If you give even ten times that to a homeless person, they're still homeless, they still have all the problems which led them to become homeless, their life has been only very temporarily improved. And if you do make a connection with them, even a temporary minor connection, to an extent they start to become your responsibility. I know I'm nervous in the back of my mind that if I help a beggar with anything more than throwing 50p into their hat (which when you think of it is a pretty dehumanizing thing to do), I'll be faced with problems that are way too big for me to fix.

It may be that the best solution is to just routinely give 50p to everyone who asks. No matter what story they tell or don't. It's probably not going to add up to a whole lot of money in absolute terms or a big bite of my charity money. It probably does some minor harm (more money flowing into the hands of drug dealers, encouraging people to importune passers-by) and some minor good (beggars getting slightly more money for things that make them happy, and a somewhat enhanced sense of being respected and treated as a fellow human.) I definitely have phases of doing this, and phases of not giving directly to street beggars at all for all the obvious reasons. But I'm not sure that offering to buy someone a cup of coffee, a train ticket or a night in a shelter or B&B but refusing cash is really better than either option.

Comments

[jack]

*hugs* Thank you, that was basically what I was thinking.

I'm also thinking, better complicated reasons aside, I've recently tried to go cold turkey on "procrastinating about important things", "leaving all my post in a giant disorganised pile", "eating too much", "not going to the gym", "too much caffeine", etc, etc. But because I don't want to move house, get married, go on holiday, and quit five different habits all at once, I sensibly decided to do them one at a time (sorry to people who think that OF COURSE the REST of your life is ABSOLUTELY PERFECT so the ONLY reason you might not fix problem #7 IMMEDIATELY is because you're lazy and stupid, not because breaking twelve bad habits all at the same time may leave you forgetting what you're supposed to be doing). If I'm homeless and struggling to survive, quitting drugs, alcohol, smoking, getting my life in shape, etc, etc may all be laudable goals, and if I only have so much money it may be better to prioritise food over prolonging the inevitable cold-turkey on stuff I'm addicted to, but honestly, it's a terrible time to try to be doing lots of stuff, so saying "everyone needs to go cold turkey instantly or they're not worth helping" which is what many people accidentally imply, may not actually be helpful advice, even if it's well meant and may be useful sometimes.

[ewt]

Agree. It's a pretty tall order to ask someone to stop smoking or drinking or whatever when they are tired and cold and hungry and vulnerable and sleeping outdoors without proper equipment.

[liv]

Yeah, that's a good point too. I mean, there are some good reasons for organizations to refuse to help people unless they at least give up illegal drugs, but I don't think those reasons apply to random people handing over some small change. It's really hard for well-off people with generally happy lives to give up addictions, even with loads of support from both professionals and friends, so asking a homeless person to do so on their own is a bit ridiculous.

I can definitely relate to the feeling that you don't want your money to be used for something which is harmful both to the recipient and to society. And it seems unfair that some people manage to deal with dire poverty, mental illness, lack of social support etc without resorting to drugs, so why should the users be rewarded? But while that's understandable, I think it's just an emotional response and not a reliable guide to action.

[jack]

And how come fast food all sucks? We have vans serving ok burger+chips, but why can't there be more fast food serving "giant vat of tasty curry that gets nicer the more you simmer it" and have an actually good meal you can buy with little hassle? I know serving decent hot food is really hard, but I'm sure I've had "here's a big vat, the longer you leave it, the better it gets" food in some places.

[liv]

Well, one answer is that fast food doesn't suck, it's pretty much optimal for what it's for, which is to provide as many calories as possible as cheaply as possible, and to be tasty and satisfying (by means of having a high salt and fat content). For people who don't have access to enough calories, and also don't have cooking and storage facilities to be able to prepare food from fresh ingredients, fast food is a pretty good proposition. The reason you always hear lots of tsking about how it's so bad for you is because people who don't have a deficit of calories or money shouldn't live exclusively on fast food, and doing so may have long-term health consequences.

A more depressing answer is that one of the factors that drive capitalism is that food production, everything from agriculture to serving prepared food, has to be underpaid. So there's a massive race to the bottom to make it possible for poor people (not just homeless people, but everyone who isn't seriously rich) to eat at all.

I've seen the big simmering vat approach used at places like Sikh Gurdwaras where they pretty much just provide basic food for anyone who shows up. I suppose soup kitchens follow a similar sort of principle, don't they? But I don't know if there's places that do that as a commercial venture.

[mair_aw]

well, that mosque thing in edinburgh that provides curry for three quid[1] every lunchtime, I guess?


[1] or did in, er, 2005.

[atreic]

I think I mostly agree with you, but my reservations are...

1) I don't like encouraging people to lie or deceive. If I give money to train / bus ticket scammers, then they will keep trying the same tricks, presumably sometimes on people who are more vulnerable and find the money that they will be asking to actually be a significant part of their income.

2) I am very consequentialist. I remain to be convinced that the minor good balances the harm. I'm not even that convinced the harm is minor. (part of this is that the man who invented the big issue gave a very moving speech when I was about 18 and vulnerable about how giving money to beggers was Bad)

3) I am very swayed by the rational giving movement (although I have really enjoyed your thinky posts on that and found them helpful and challenging, they haven't really shifted my position much). So even if there is no harm associated with it, I think it's clearly not cost-effective good.

If it was just (1) then the solution might be to give money to anyone who just said 'can you spare some change' or 'homeless, would like money', and irratatingly try to buy the ticket for anyone who tried to scam, as it wastes their time and penalises them for lying. But that seems a bit perverse, and also doesn't help with (2) and (3).

I think maybe I should revert back to 'sorry, I don't give to street beggars'. But that feels a bit sad and defeatist.

[vatine]

Yeah, I have in the past given money to people saying "Can I have X amount, towards buying booze", because at that point they are (probably) honest.

I had absolutely no moral qualms about giving Rikskuponger (basically, coupons that can only be used for buying food, usually given as a perk to "professionals" in Sweden, about 2/3 of the face value is taken off your monthly pay and you pay tax on the remaining 1/3, so in total you end up getting about ~1/6th for free) to beggars in Stockholm, if they said "can I have 20 SEK for a meal" (I usually gave them a 45 SEK-equivalent in food-only money, especially when they stared giving change back). They asked for money towards food, I gave them money towards food.

Bus/train-ticket scammers I do not buy from (nor give tickets to, I was briefly wondering why people were standing outside tube stations asking for tickets just after having moved to the UK, but once I understood why, I stopped saying "no").

[liv]

Rikskuponger is a really good idea, because unlike food vouchers etc, they're not stigmatized or only accepted in special charity places, "normal" people use them to purchase food in normal outlets. I think with that I would still be worried that if the person was inclined to scam (eg if they were lying to me about wanting money for food), they'd just sell the coupons. Train ticket scams are just sad, though I suspect getting less common as nearly everybody just uses Oysters to pay for everything.

[vatine]

Based on the fact that the majority (slim, from recollection maybe 55%) of them cursed at me or refused to accept the (free!) food coupon, I think they really wanted something that wasn't food.

One of the reasons I thought it was a good idea is that value honesty and if they accepted the (free!) food, I had no reason to believe they were lying, but if they didn't, I could be pretty sure they were.

Ticket scammers

[pne]

I was briefly wondering why people were standing outside tube stations asking for tickets just after having moved to the UK, but once I understood why, I stopped saying "no"

Not having lived in the UK: why do they do this, then?

Re: Ticket scammers

[liv]

Before we had electronic contact cards to pay for London transport, you could buy a daily or weekly ticket which gave you unlimited travel. The scammers would ask travellers who'd reached their final destination to pass on their tickets, and then sell them on to marks at a discount compared to actually buying a ticket from the transport company. I think most people wouldn't mind giving a ticket they'd finished using to help a needy person get home, on the argument that it costs me nothing and does a favour to the beggar. But people object to donating their tickets if they're just going to be sold under the counter.

Re: Ticket scammers

[pne]

Thanks! That makes sense.

[liv]

All your points make entire sense to me. I definitely see the sense in not encouraging scams, but I do worry that the clever "buy them stuff, don't give cash" trick just encourages more effective scams. Scamming people for train tickets or fuel and then selling them on for a profit. Getting marks to accompany you on a complex quest to be able to buy the needed thing, so that you have a chance to build up a relationship and can embarrass or guilt them into giving you more.

I am certainly in sympathy with consequentialism, but I am pretty wishy-washy about it, it's not a core thing for me. I definitely agree that giving to beggars promotes things that are socially bad, even if it is at least arguably good for the individual beggars. I am naturally drawn to things like the Big Issue, I find it social enterprise appealing, I like the idea of someone earning money by selling something genuinely useful rather than begging, and getting support with life-skills and housing and generally being able to put the money they earn to good use. But again, I don't know how effective that kind of thing is really, just because it makes me feel warm and fuzzy.

I do absolutely agree that it's clearly not cost-effective, and equally that just blanket refusing is sad and defeatist. I strongly suspect buying the tickets isn't very cost-effective either, though.

[ewt]

I'm more likely to give money to people after dark, as I feel they're more vulnerable then.

I have gone into a shop and bought something I didn't necessarily need to get right away in order to have change to give to someone begging outside.

I also try to keep some change accessible in a pocket, because I don't like standing around getting my wallet out to retrieve change. I think I have an obligation to help, but I don't think I help a lot if I endanger myself.

My main problem with the LessWrong/rational giving/etc arguments is that I suspect many people making them do not, in fact, turn around and donate £3.50/week to some super-efficient overseas cause (based on 1 beggar/day getting 50p: a very low estimate for London). I have a lot of respect for people who decide they are going to give 5% or 10% of their income to charitable causes of one sort or another and then do so, or who decide a certain standard of living for themselves and then donate any additional income; I have less patience for those who spout negative arguments against one form of giving and then don't actually do the others.

Because I think giving money to beggars is not a good long-term solution, and because my own giving is sporadic (sometimes I just don't have change, sometimes I don't want to risk digging it out as detailed above), I've spent about 108 hours volunteering at a local shelter in the last two years. It isn't a shelter that is equipped to offer high levels of support, but it's a bit less stopgap than some, and it shows 30-ish people that I think they are human enough to be worth getting out of bed and making breakfast for.

[atreic]

My main problem with the LessWrong/rational giving/etc arguments is that I suspect many people making them do not, in fact, turn around and donate £3.50/week to some super-efficient overseas cause

Our milage may vary, but as far as I can tell most people who I've engaged in cost-effective giving arguments with are _also_ very passionate about encouraging people to give more to charity, and are striving to do things like the Giving What We Can Pledge personally. This could just be sampling bias because I have awesome friends though :-)

[ewt]

I think that's probably true of people who engage with the arguments in a serious way, but I've heard a lot of off-the-cuff "better to donate malaria nets in Africa where it will REALLY do some good" and similar comments from people who, when asked, cannot name the charities they donate to which do this work, or how much they give per month. It's quite possible that the people saying these things have no awareness that organisations such as Giving What We Can even exist, so perhaps I shouldn't have attached the LessWrong/rational giving/etc label to them.

Such comments tend to be in person, rather than online, which also makes it difficult to link to them! My response, if I give one, is that I donate to a school in Tanzania where I trust the local people involved to know what is the best use of funds (I know one of the main people involved), and also to charities in the UK, and that I volunteer some of my time (which, let's face it, I'm not using getting rich in order to donate to charity -- and probably am not capable of using in that way) in a homeless shelter, and I still often give money to beggars if it seems safe to do so.

Furthermore, I think there's a question of triage here: maybe it would be more efficient for me to put all my spare money into "Deworm the World" -- but the reality is that these are not the only people who need help. I need prescription painkillers from time to time, and have previously used mental health services; should these be taken away in favour of treating minor bacterial infections before they become severe? The latter is almost certainly a more efficient use of resources in terms of cost to the NHS and outcome: the mental health support I got was moderately useful but very time-consuming, and the prescription painkillers (when I need them), though cheap enough, do nothing to treat the underlying chronic condition.

Lots of problems exist at once, and I think if we are looking at using our resources to try and make life better for people, there is something to be said for a multi-pronged approach. It may be that liv's DreamWidth is not the best place for a debate on this, though. And as I said, I do respect people who make an informed decision on how much they are going to donate to which charities, and then do so, even if they have come to different conclusions than I have as to what is best; my gripe is with people who I suspect use arguments of efficiency as a smokescreen for not doing anything at all.

[atreic]

That all makes a lot of sense! I suspect there is a huge value in actually volunteering to personally make the world a better place, rather than just posting off money and hoping it will happen (although I'm sympathetic to arguments like 'If I can make a million pounds an hour and give it to Deworm the World, this is better than me making soup for an hour')

I think at the moment the risk of everyone in the UK waking up and thinking 'I will never give money to the RSPCA or Help the Heros or Jimmys Nightshelter again, I will only give to Deworm the World' is pretty much zero, so I can take a 'for me, I would like to act in a way that increases the amount of giving that is cost effective' without being at any risk of even having to decide if 'is a world where all giving goes on the most cost effective problem' a bad thing that I might be causing to happen.

similar comments from people who, when asked, cannot name the charities they donate to which do this work

I am glad I have not noticed I have met people like this.

In general, I'm in favour of people trying to fix problems they personally care about fixing, and in favour of multipronged 'not putting all our attempts to make the world a better place' in one basket.

[liv]

I think I'm less likely to give after dark, precisely because of the not wanting to take out a wallet when I might be making myself vulnerable to attack. Keeping accessible change is a good idea, I might start doing that. And I really do admire you for doing the shelter volunteering, that's a really awesome thing; it fulfils all the purposes of giving change to show people that you care about them, and does more practical good in lots of ways.

I do have serious issues with the rational giving people, but I think many of them are genuinely committed to giving serious money to charity. People who bring up "but what about the starving children in Africa?" like it's some kind of clever debating point are just jerks, they're not the ones I'm talking about.

[pretty_panther]

Have to say I have a pretty unpopular opinion. I don't ever give out money because we're in the UK. We have a welfare state that will support people. There is always somewhere that beggers can go here. There is always some sort of support that the government will give them. I know that there is a section of the homeless that struggle to get this help but for a lot of them, there is help out there. People pay their taxes and that money goes towards the benefits and housing, food ect that helps people so in a way I think we've already given out.


But then, I have very strong opinions on donating money to other countries too and tend to be able to justify giving to animal charities more than people...

[ewt]

I can assure you that many, many people fall through the cracks of the benefit system in this country, and the benefits available are not always appropriate or even on the right scale for the complex problems homeless people can face.

Are you involved in campaigning to make sure that e.g. disability benefits and housing benefits are changed to make sure people get the help they need?

[pretty_panther]

I said that there were a section that struggle with the system but I don't think handing out money to every begger that asks me for something is going to help solve that problem in the slightest.

Not that it is any of your business but I campaign to get myself out of bed in the morning, because I am ON disability benefits for a rather long list of ailments. When I was able I did in fact do a lot of work to raise awareness about what it is like to live with invisible disabilities and why it might not always be obvious why we need help but in fact do.

[ewt]

I fully agree that giving money to beggars doesn't help with the long-term problems: I don't think this post, or my comment, suggested that it does.

I think that trying to solve short-term problems is also important, though if someone is in a situation (as it sounds like you are) where funds/energy for helping other people are limited, I can understand prioritising attention to long-term problems. My comment did not make that clear, and I'm sorry if I caused you any distress by it.

Regarding aid to other countries, Giving What We Can has a page of myths about aid which might be of interest.

[amadi]

The only problem with that is that people who are homeless -- living on the streets and begging, not the people who are scrambling for shelter and aid and working within the welfare system -- are typically either mentally ill, dealing with an addiction or both. They cannot advocate for themselves to the extent needed to sign on for benefits, and unless something astounding has happened to the NHS in the past few hours, there aren't enough mental health/addiction treatment spots in NHS facilities to care for everyone in such straits.

[pretty_panther]

As I said, there is a group that struggle with the system. I don't think handing 50p to every begger I see will solve anything. Even if it gets that person a cup of coffee, a bag of crisps or they puts it towards their next fix. A few hours later, they need more.

It was actually on the news this morning that the government is trying to look deeper into helping those with mental illnesses in this country. I think making voices heard about what living with these illnesses means and how it impacts people is what will help. I wasn't asked about that. Or rather, I wasn't really asked anything. I just shared an opinion that I said would be unpopular.

[amadi]

Giving someone money to buy a cup of coffee or a bag of crisps does solve something, their immediate hunger. And sometimes that's what's most needed. Putting food or a hot drink in someone's empty stomach is often the kindest thing that can possibly be done.

The idea that you have to solve all their problems or you can't be bothered to solve any is kind of silly.

[pretty_panther]

Ok, I don't think it solves anything long term which is where they really need help. I am myself disabled. I don't have enough money to give everyone something, other than my time which I do give when able.

you can't be bothered to solve any is kind of silly.. At no point have I said that I cannot be bothered. I find that statement highly offensive. Nor did I say that I wanted to try and solve all their problems. I think there are bigger issues at play here that need to be looked at, that no one asked me about, and yeah I'd rather be one of the ones that helps tackle them. If others want to do more one to one help, that is their choice.

[amadi]

Frankly, I find it highly offensive to see someone justifying walking away from someone who's hungry because they can't solve their problems "long term" when no one damn well asked them to.

[pretty_panther]

I would rather donate my money to charities that run things like food kitchens (which I do when I can) and my time to help raise awareness to improve the situation for all (when I'm able).


Also, my 'justifications' would not be anything like this in the moment. They would consist of 'holy fuck there is a stranger talking to me, what do they want, i'm going to get hurt, something will go wrong, i can't breathe, i'm going to die, why did i ever leave the house, hurts, breathe, RUN'. Chronic social anxiety disorder. You have your opinions and I respect them, but have my own. I'm done with this conversation because it is upsetting my anxiety too much and I don't want to have another panic attack today. You do your thing, I will do mine and hopefully between us people will get the help that they need.

[tig_b]

Unfortunately this wasn't true before, and certainly isn't now. I've worked with people who couldn't get official support - falling through the cracks is very easy in the UK, and getting easier.

What do you think happens to the thousands of disabled people who are losing their benefits? To the 16-17 year olds who can't live at home? To working households who from next year will lose housing benefit because they can't earn enough?

[pretty_panther]

Like I said, some get caught out by the system, I am aware of that. I just don't think thank giving 50p to every begger I come across is going to solve that problem. It won't even help their problem for more than a couple of hours if I'm lucky.

That is not what I was asked in this post. It is none of your business whatsoever but I am actually on benefits because of my disability and its current circumstances. I think people are being punished because of the people that claim to have problems they don't. I think the way they decide whether someone is or is not capable of things is narrow minded and farcical and needs to be looked at. I know exactly what happens and am prepared for it. I'm still grateful for the system that we have because I'd be in an even worse state if I lived any where else.


I'm Scottish so the 16-17 year olds question is meaningless to me without context. They can be 16 or 30 in Scotland. Try to find work, try to find a home. They face the same challenges as anyone else.

I think people in general have very misguided ideas of what is 'needed' in life. I grew up with nothing, before all the shiny benefits came in under Labour, and sometimes we didn't have lights, sometimes we didn't have electricity and food was always the cheapest going but my single mother with no support from my father made it work. You can't objectively band everyone that is going to lose housing benefit under the same banner like that. Some will struggle yes, and it will be hard but there is a way through such things. I do believe that because I have lived that. TV, internet, tumble dryers, dishwashers, computers, video games ect are not life essentials. Given the context of your questions and the original post it seems you're saying those losing housing benefit will automatically end up homeless and with no where to go, and I just can't agree with that. It reads like chatastrophising.

My country is flawed in many places but it could be a hell of a lot worse and as my main point has been, I don't think throwing a person a pound every time I walk past will help anyone, especially as I don't exactly have many to spare myself.


For future notes, this came off as very aggressive considering I don't know you and was sharing my opinion with a friend. It contributed to me having a panic attack because of my severe social anxiety. I'm not looking for anything other than you to think about your wording in future when talking to people that you don't know.

[liv]

Sorry it's taken me ages to get back to this discussion. I did want to say thanks for commenting, and also I'm sorry that the discussion ended up being stressful and upsetting for you. I am largely in sympathy with the view that paying tax is an important aspect of helping the needy. Personally, I would have no problem with someone who chose not to give to charity beyond that, especially if they instead devoted their energy to political activism in favour of making sure that tax money is well used.

[batdina]

So I'm totally ignorant in the ways in which the NHS and other UK organisations operate, but I can share my "solution" (if such a term qualifies here) when I was in a position to have to make such choices on a daily basis.

I had two methods: one was that every Friday, on my way home to make Shabbat, I handed the same person $20. At a certain point he knew that if he was at the entrance to BART at the right time (same time every week) I'd be there to hand him cash. I never asked what he did with it, though he often volunteered to tell me if I wanted to know.

The other method was uncomfortable for me, but I did it because the person asking wanted to feed his kid. I met him once a week outside McDonalds near my offices and bought him two breakfasts, one for him, one for his kid. If he was there on that day (and he always was) that's what I did. It was basically the cost of my daily latte to feed them and I can live without designer coffee so ...

Anyway, I used to worry about what the people I gave spare change to did with the money I gave them. (Once upon a time, a guy standing outside the Coop asked me for money for a potato and when I came out of the store and handed him a potato, he looked a bit confused.) But once I've handed the money over, it's really not my business what the person does with it.

It might matter here that in the US there are more cracks to fall through than safety net to catch people, but I suspect I'm more likely to give regularly if I have a face to connect to the gift and not just an envelope to load a check into. Spare change never adds up for me in the way the checkbook often fails to balance at the end of the month.

[liv]

Huh, that's a really interesting idea, picking a couple of specific individuals and giving them decent sums of money whenever they ask. It allows you to build up some kind of relationship with the recipients, without becoming responsible for them or trying to act like you have some kind of hold over them because you give them money. I do agree that if you're willing to give, it should be a gift, it's not appropriate to tell people how to spend the money once you've given it.

[elf]

My neighborhood gets door-to-door beggars. People will come up, knock on the door, and ask for $1 or $5 or more, often with some Story of Great Woe (my wife's in the hospital; my brother lost his job and we just need to raise $80 to pay the electricity bill).

Sometimes I hand them money. Mostly I don't. Handing them money gets them to come *back.* (I've wondered if some of the graffiti on our windows is code for "Suckers Inside.")

We get a lot more door-to-door people asking for cans to recycle. Those, we used to give out to whoever asked for them first; we've stopped, and taken to just stacking the cans outside to be picked up. If they ever stuck around more than 6 hours, I'd worry about the mess.

(I live in an industrial area. We have no recycling pick-up; we're not zoned for it. Our garbage pick-up is a dumpster a block away.)

I never fretted over what they were spending the money on. I didn't like the lying, but I figure anyone desperate enough to beg strangers for money needed *something*, and if booze is what makes their life tolerable, so be it. I'm not under the delusion that if they saved up my $2 and their next $5 and a bunch of quarters, they'd eventually have enough to fix their car to get that job 25 miles away, nor even that they'd be able to buy a couple of new outfits from Goodwill, get a haircut, and apply for a job at one of the local shops.

I know how many of the local shops aren't hiring. I know how much they don't want to hire someone on parole, and how much they don't want to hire someone who's never worked a 40-hour job in their lives. How much they don't want to hire someone who doesn't have an address.

The safety nets in the US work tolerably--allowing for a certain level of fuckups--for people who are white, moderately-educated (at least a high-school diploma, and the skills expected from that), English-fluent, not part of an "exotic" cultural group, not disabled in any way, single, and without children. Change any of those, and the chance of falling through the cracks or getting bumped into a morass of unreachable requirements increases. Change multiples, and it quickly becomes almost insurmountable.

At the very least, for the official aid channels to work, a person has to be able to fill out large stacks of confusing forms and provide multiple bits of ID and paper verification of various statuses. (Quick, prove, on paper, that you're unemployed and broke. Prove that you're homeless. Prove that you're unable to climb 3 flights of stairs to a job... within 30 days, or your claim is denied.)

A lot of the US system seems to be designed to shame people out of poverty. It works exactly as well as you'd expect.

Because of that, I don't worry about what people in poverty--whether they beg or not--spend money on. I like the Occupy movement's attitude towards helping people: if you're here asking, you must need help. Not our job to sort out what kind of help you need--we trust you to know your own needs of moment.

Friends can suggest "hey, perhaps a little less beer, a few more sandwiches, mmkay?" I am not their friend. I'm *donating*, not making a bargain of "you can have $X if you promise to spend it on things I approve of." I don't want that obligation hanging on them, and I don't want that kind of commitment to care what they do next.

I can hope they spend it on things that improve their life, not just their day. But in the end, it's not my choice, and I don't want it to be.

[lilacsigil]

At the very least, for the official aid channels to work, a person has to be able to fill out large stacks of confusing forms and provide multiple bits of ID and paper verification of various statuses.

Not just in the US. Even before the current round of "punish the sick" started here in Australia, I found the forms and requirements extremely complex - and I had every advantage except health when I was working with them. And I also had good public transport, lived relatively close to the relevant office and had close-to-free healthcare. I have great respect for people who negotiate their way through the punishing bureaucracy with far fewer resources than I had in order to survive.

[liv]

Ugh, door-to-door beggars, that's pretty creepy, actually. I think I'd find that more intrusive than people approaching me in the street. I suppose I sometimes get "salesmen" who are selling stuff that nobody would ever really want, as a way of asking for charity without actually begging. Things like really basic cleaning products which they sell at a slight profit. But I basically don't buy from door-to-door salespeople, whether what they're selling is commercial or charitable.

I do very much agree with you that it doesn't matter what people spend the money on once you've given them small change. I think you're either willing to give someone a few coins they can spend on whatever personal pleasures they choose, or you're not. I don't particularly think there's important superiority to spending such donations on food and shelter versus on drink and cigarettes, and you're right, if you're homeless it's nearly impossible to "save up" money. And it's arrogant to think I can dictate to someone how to spend their money just because I'm relatively better off.

You're absolutely right about the safety net only working for people who already have some advantages even if their financial situation is pretty bad. Things are less bad here in the UK, but there are undoubtedly similar problems albeit on a smaller scale. I don't think giving a dollar to a beggar compensates for the holes in the safety net, the point of doing it is not to fix people's or society's dire problems, it's to show someone a minor kindness and offer them the chance of a small pleasure they might not otherwise have.

[lilacsigil]

I live in a town so small it has no people living on the streets* and no beggars, so this is not something I frequently see anymore. So while I used to budget $10/week out of my student benefit to give out $1 at a time, the problem is no longer personal for me. Personally, I don't see why the two ideas are incompatible - I gave to both charities and individuals, and now that I don't see the individuals, I give more money to charities.

I was on a welfare payment (denied disability because I had cancer and was expected to recover within two years) and that's the only time I gave no money. And that's because that welfare payment was sufficient for my needs only because I was so sick that I spent 48 hours at a time in bed, not spending any money on bills or transport or food. I know I was still better off than some people in other countries, and my medical treatment was paid for, but it was fucking miserable and that's why, when I had money, I gave both a small amount for daily needs (for whatever the recipient wants) plus directly to charities. Both forms accomplish something.

*Not that there's no couch-surfers and no-one ever loses their home - but the town is so small we have no access to social services and no public transport, so if people lose their home they go to a bigger town for help.

[liv]

That's a great example of using your own experiences as a source of empathy, though I'm really sad to hear you went through financial troubles on top of having cancer. And yes, you're right that giving small sums to people who ask accomplishes different things from giving to charities; they are not necessarily in conflict.

[sea_bright]

Oxford City Council is running a major ad campaign at the moment to discourage people from giving money to beggars, but instead to give to charities that work with homeless people. The reason given is that handing over small change can actually help keep people on the streets, and that it often goes towards buying drugs that will ultimately kill them.

I don't personally have huge moral qualms about the idea that if I give someone some money, they might spend it on a can of something cheap to dull the pain rather than on something more worthy (there's a lovely story about C. S. Lewis giving some money to a beggar, being asked 'But aren't you worried he'll spend it on drink?' and responding 'Well, I'd only spend it on drink if I kept it.'), but I am hugely bothered by the idea that my trickle of small change might be what allows someone to buy the fix that kills them. I have to admit I see giving to homelessness charities as a sort of outsourcing: I don't personally have the time, skills, or resources to establish whether each person who asks me for money will actually be benefited by it, but that's what organizations who work with homeless people exist for, and it also seems to me they have a better chance of providing the sort of help that ultimately enables people to get off the streets. But while I do genuinely think it's more likely to do good, I'm also uncomfortably aware that it lacks something of the personal touch.

[ewt]

My difficulty with this is that homelessness organisations are chronically short of funds and can't help everyone, either.

I would rather see an ad campaign that encourages people to donate to charities working with homeless people *without* discouraging giving to beggars.

[liv]

I really, really hate "don't give to beggars" campaigns. I am aware that it can sometimes cause harm and possibly keep people on the streets. But somehow whenever I see those campaigns I feel contrary and end up increasing my giving. There's so often a vibe of telling people not to give because homeless people spoil the ambience of the town and make proper respectable citizens feel uncomfortable.

I have similar views that it's not up to me to judge whether someone is going to get more happiness out of a can of beer than a fast food meal, but I don't particularly like contributing to something that may do the recipient harm. I think outsourcing is a good way of looking at charitable giving; you trust the charity to figure out where the money is most needed. And I do see the concern that you're not personally making connections with people, but honestly, I feel that's not where my strengths lie. I'm good at doing a well-paid job so that I have spare money to give to homeless charities, I'm not good at building a rapport with beggars because I'm too busy trying to calculate whether they're a threat to me, and because I have little understanding of what their life is like.

[sophiacatherine]

Really good summary of the issues.

"I think part of the point of giving small change is not that it's perfectly financially efficient, but that sometimes there's some worth in showing a beggar that you see them as a human being, that you care about the hardship they're going through."

This is the reason why I usually will give a small amount of money to beggars (while also supporting homeless charities with more decent donations). It's too easy to dehumanise people who have to resort to begging. I think anything I can do to help them feel more human in their situation is something good that I can contribute - and it helps to re-humanise *me*, too.

And, as my father once said to me: "I always look and them and think - if this was you or your sister who'd fallen on hard times and was living on the streets, what would I want other people to do?"

[liv]

Yes, I agree with you. There are horrible professional beggars in Jerusalem who go around saying "not for me, for your soul" and they're awful, but the sentiment is mostly true, giving to beggars rather than trying to avoid seeing them is good for me. I think if someone close to me ended up on the streets, I'd more want there to be social programmes (government or charitable, I'm not fussy) than I would want random strangers to throw them small coins.