That's certainly a logical opinion, and I agree that efficiency is key. However, I think it's also important to keep in mind the personal value of traveling on aid trips, which allow for an improved understanding of the need that lies. Perhaps this encourages potential donors to increase the frequency and quantity of their contributions.
I'd liken it to the classic criticism: "charities spend too much money on advertising!"
But how do charities get donations without advertising? How do they let people know why they need the money and encourage them to donate? At some point, yes, a charity can spend too much of its donations on advertising, but advertising in general is a necessary evil.
Same with this. The charities might take in less overall if they "saved" money by scrapping these types of programs.
Lots of charities are entirely advertising and exist entirely so that the charity can keep on employing the people it employs.
This isn't 100% useless, as it causes economic activity, but it's done under the lie that non-profits are de facto good things.
This is the challenging thing about charities. If I want to evaluate the person selling me socks or smart phones, I look at the good they offer and decide if it is worth $N. If it is, I make the trade. If not, I don't.
But with charities, you have to figure out "is the marginal change the charity will do with $5 worth me having five dollars less?" And that's incredibly hard to figure out. Even the charity itself, assuming it even wants to know, can have a hard time figuring out the net difference of five dollars.
It is also similar to the criticism of CEO pay for nonprofits. If the CEO brings in additional donations and furthers the organization's mission, why wouldn't they have pay competitive to a for-profit org? Why should you be paid less to do good than evil?
I suppose that is fair. But since I don't donate 1/1000th of what these people do even with the trip, I don't really think my grandstanding on how they spend their own money would really be justified.
I will say that I took a holiday last year, and technically that is money I could have used to donate. So in that sense I am just as bad as they are.
Also, it maybe efficient in turning dollars to aid, but nobody at the "rich trader bar" wants to hear a story about someone donating money... that's just a way to reduce taxable income. An engaging personal story about travel and experiences is much more likely to have an impact on others.
From a purely financial, self-interested standpoint, how does a donation to charity which reduces taxable income actually help a person? If I reduce my income by $100, it's true I won't have to give the fraction of that to the government that I might have, but now rather than being out a fraction to the government, I'm out the entirety to the charity.
Even in the case where the donation drop the payer to a lower tax bracket, I don't see how it helps. Any insight greatly appreciated.
