Some people think that a fixed part of everyone’s salary must be given for charity. I do not agree with this idea at all, as far as an individual should not be coerced to express compassion, and I definitely accept the point that the subtraction of a certain quantity of money would foster crime in a specific manner. The next paragraph is going to elaborate on my view.
Firstly, the good deed is the personal business; that is why I am convinced that making people donate any amount of money against their will is an uncertain enterprise. There is no pleasure in giving money in case you are forced to do it and, what is more crucial, in receiving it if you know that this help was made insincerely. The idea itself about the origin of the income might be embarrassing for many people, because any goods bought would be felt like stolen or malevolent. Secondly, developing this thought, the charity made in result of enforcement is indifferent for the supporters because it would be considered as a tax. There will be few people who will check if their help reached the target, as far as it demands additional efforts. This fact would contribute to both corruption and thievery.
On the other hand, there are some families who struggle with severe economic issues, so they would be content with money wherever it comes from. But I suppose the people experiencing such a fierce financial catastrophe are the small part of the overall population; thus the voluntary donations would cover their demands completely.
To sum up, humanitarian action is personal business. So, in my opinion, there are no suitable circumstances to implement this practice in the modern world.