Yeah, giving of your own resources is 1000x better than obligating others to “give”. But in defense of the Northeast, I believe much charity in the rest of the country is based on giving to churches. But a good chunk of that church charity in effect serves as funding a community social club. That portion of church finances that is passed on to other charitable causes is probably all that should be factored into the equation.
Also, I’m not a big proponent of judging donations relative to income (or assets). Yeah, we can understand why there is something to that, in that someone who is poor can sacrifice more in order to give less. But someone who works hard and gets an education that enables them to make and give more money makes more of a difference than someone who takes it easy with a high school education and works only 40 hours a week at a menial job, then gives (by necessity) very little.
I'd beg to disagree. Even church based community social clubs serve a valuable function as networks to help people find jobs, help those who are down on their luck and the like.
Here in SW Pennsylvania, these so-called clubs stock food pantries, help "redd-up" the yards and homes of the elderly, run bingo games to support the local fire hall, deliver meals to the home-bound and scores of similar activities.
The amount spent on administration and overhead is considerably less than your typical government program and very comparable to the best run charities such as the Salvation Army.
Add to that the fact that a church based social club may go a long ways to prevent the creation of "troubled youth" and the professional "gimmedat" adults in the first place.