Giving to charity is far better than paying taxes. It gives you the choice where you money goes (IE to programs your community needs not what is a pet project of some bureaucrat) and the money (generally) goes directly to the cause instead of through several levels of bureaucracy. I can also donate things.
I can donate a case of canned food that might cost $20 directly to the local food shelter and know that the food is going to work in the community.
I can also pay $20 in taxes, have 50% of that returned to the state of California, lose another 25% because of the bureaucracy, and the have the remaining $5 be put to some politicians meaningless pet project.
I think ill take charity any day of the week.
Sadly this mentality of the nanny state has taken over and many charities are shrinking or going out of business. We also have the federal government dictating what charities have to do so many of them are simply giving up.
I do a lot of work with charities right now and your idea of how efficient they are is flawed. Most are not very efficient, and the ones that ARE efficient are limited in size and scope and have to fight for money from donors who are completely irrational.
Most people who donate do so because of some kind of personal connection or affiliation. They donate to their alma mater, or to the hospital where they received their cancer treatment, or because of a religious affiliation. That's the DEFINITION of pet project. God forbid anyone ask you to do research to donate to an organization that is efficient or more importantly, effective.
The overwhelmingly vast majority of charities are ineffective; even the efficient ones. You cry about how welfare perpetuates poverty, well so do homeless shelters and soup kitchens.
So much money from private donors and family foundations is earmarked for certain causes, moreso than from the government. In fact, I sat in a pitch session for social enterprises/charities and sat on the ensuing funding panel this week that featured a number of private foundations and a few government foundations. The private foundations had way more restrictions on where they would put money, and would restrict the donees on how they could spend the money. The worst candidate organization got funded by two private family foundations because they fulfilled a certain criterion. And by worst I mean they shouldn't even be in operation because they are so ineffective.
The government foundations could use some help with their vetting process (I'll be volunteering my time to help them out), but other than that, they funded along intelligently defined criteria.