Compelled disbursement of one's money is called payment, holdup (as in robbery) etc. not charitable giving. It's also called taxes, levies, fines, penalties etc. and the list goes on to describe ways in which people can be compelled to relieve themselves of the contents of their wallets and can, in no way be qualified as charity. Don't people feel that they already pay enough taxes as it is?
Charity comes from empathy towards others in need and a true desire to help them. It's a desire to share one's good fortune with others less fortunate. It comes from an urge to contribute somehow in alleviating a fellow human being's pain, suffering, and misfortune.
It is a gesture that should be 100% voluntary otherwise it defeats the purpose. Someone who is forced to give can become resentful towards the beneficiary. Resentment breeds other negative feelings that can eventually lead to willful misdeeds and negative action/reactions towards beneficiaries as a means of (at times passive-aggressive) retaliation. A person who is compelled to give may come to feel that he/she has been treated with injustice, robbed in some way and rightly so; they may have had better things or more important things to do with their money - it's their money isn't it? So why can't they spend it the way they want to?
To be compelled to give time and effort toward any given task is called forced labor, a job that one doesn't really like but needs the pay, school homework, doing one's part around the house, servitude and many other varied terms but it is not charity.
Take for example all of the volunteers who set out on a moment's notice to help out after the Tsunami hit. Granted some did it just for the money they could quickly earn in such an emergency situation, but many others did it because they had a deep heartfelt desire to help out people in distress. There are many others who would have gone had they had the opportunity to do so.
The ravaged landscape made working conditions extremely difficult and often frustrating for everyone there. Imagine for just one minute that the people who went had been compelled to do so. What kind of work would they have produced and how would they have treated the local people in the process? What would have happened?
People gave their time and elbow grease willingly and had this not been the case, we would probably have been faced with a different type of disaster with local people pitted against strangers in their land.
So often at the approach of winter, I've seen posters in New York subways asking people to donate coats and reminding them to keep in mind the preservation of the beneficiaries' dignity when giving by donating clothing that are still in good condition. They are asked not to donate coats that are torn or damaged in such a way as to be something, they themselves wouldn't want to wear. Someone who gives grudgingly is more likely to easily and/or willfully trample that dignity at any time.
Some people already morally and emotionally beat themselves to a pulp with guilt feelings after finding themselves in a predicament through unforeseen circumstances that compels them to seek help and even charity even if only for a brief period of time. As a result they feel shame when compelled to seek out and ask for charity and even more shame (albeit mixed with relief for having been able to fulfill a need) while receiving it. Imagine what it's like for them to have their self esteem and dignity trampled in the process of seeking and receiving charity.
Gratitude and a thank you are the salary for charity paid to the giver by the recipient. One cannot trample another's dignity in the process of giving and expect to receive a sincere and heartfelt thank you in return.
One who gives willingly and from the heart doesn't do so for the thank you's or the recognition but for the warm feeling of satisfaction of having been able to help out another person in some way however small, and if they receive some recognition or a sincere thank you for it somewhere along the way, well it makes that warm feeling even warmer and more pleasant and makes them want to give again.
There's one classic example of charity in the US that everyone knows about and has been the topic of heated debate for years: welfare.
Welfare is a form of charity aimed toward providing some form of support to the disadvantaged people of American society. I purposely used the word aimed because regardless of whoever is on welfare and however welfare recipients use their money the above was the intended purpose and we all see the results.
Granted that taxpayers are the givers but they are such in an indirect way. The government is actually the one doing the charity not the people who are paying their taxes because the government decides where the money goes.
No one gets to choose to retain whatever may be the percentage of their taxpayer money that goes into welfare. They just have to pay or get in trouble with the IRS - an entity no American wants to mess with, not even governors, presidents, and especially not multimillionaires.
I've witnessed resentment both from people who are not on welfare towards welfare recipients, as well as resentment from welfare recipients towards other people and even towards the very institution they rely on because they often feel like they get treated like second class citizens which in some situations they do.
That's government charity and it's definitely compelling for the taxpayer and the resulting debate over whether or not welfare is a good thing has been going on for years and probably will continue to do so.
Truly charitable organizations operate from donations. Within these organizations, there is a deliberate and conscious desire to instill among the workers, a culture of assisting people while preserving their dignity and this desire is sometimes reflected in and incorporated into their mission statement, staff rules and regulations and code of conduct.
Even if some of the donations they receive come from people doing so upon the advice of their accountant in order to get tax breaks, it's still voluntary and the resentment, if any, is not aimed towards any of the recipients. Such donors are getting something in return even if it's monetary benefits.
For truly charitable giving, the benefit is the warm heartfelt feeling that one has done or is doing something to help alleviate human suffering and the satisfaction which comes from it even if it's only a drop in the bucket.
The nobility of the charitable act should not be tainted by any form of constraint or compellation because of the ill-feelings that come packaged into any form of arm-twisting otherwise it defeats the purpose and creates a negative spiral that is difficult to halt. Life experience has shown me over and over again, that when one person refuses to give, there is always someone else and even more than one other person who will gladly extend and/or lend a hand when asked to, and these people are not always out of reach. Look at the case of the Tsunami and how far people travelled to offer their assistance.