We know we could do more. We read headlines about hunger, poverty, and deep inequality. We hear staggering numbers—millions living on less than two dollars a day. Even a small contribution from us can meaningfully improve someone’s life. Yet, we pause. Not from lack of caring, but from uncertainty: Where do we start? Will our contribution really matter? Too often, hesitation becomes our way of quieting the guilt of doing nothing.

That’s exactly what we at Social Income want to change. We ask for recurring donations of just 1% of your salary—but before we explain why, let's look at two dilemmas that reveal why we often don't act. Understanding these clearly shows why doing something always beats doing nothing.

Why We Help the Child We Can See

Philosopher Peter Singer famously posed a simple question: if you would save a drowning child right in front of you—even at the cost of muddy shoes—why wouldn't you help a distant child in similar need, at a similarly low cost?

The logic is clear and compelling. Most of us wouldn't hesitate to rescue a child from immediate danger. However, when helping involves donating money rather than taking direct, physical action—when it feels distant or abstract—we hesitate. Tragically, this hesitation costs lives.

Psychologists and philosophers have closely examined this phenomenon. Two reasons help explain our hesitation: first, we feel a greater sense of responsibility when physically present; second, our instincts tell us that helping one visible person feels more meaningful than helping many invisible ones.

We aren't less responsible for someone’s suffering just because they're far away. Nor should we feel inadequate because our help seems modest. What matters most is doing something—because doing nothing is indefensible.

The Trolley Problem and the Fear of Making the Wrong Choice

Consider another famous moral dilemma: a runaway trolley threatens five people. You can pull a lever to divert it onto another track, where one person will die instead. Most agree it's morally permissible to pull the lever. Yet, if saving the five requires physically pushing someone onto the track, many refuse, despite the outcome being identical.

The difference isn't logical, but emotional. Our moral decisions are heavily influenced by feelings of personal involvement, responsibility, and guilt—not always by rational outcomes. Yet, while we might confidently say we'd act in theory, we often fail to act when we have the real-world chance to help someone without harming anyone—simply by donating money.

Why We Ask for 1%

This is precisely where the 1% model makes a difference. It avoids the trap of waiting for perfection by not demanding you solve global poverty single-handedly. Instead, it simply asks you to start.

Donating 1% of your salary won't significantly change your lifestyle—chances are, you won't even notice it at the end of the month. While this isn't true for everyone, it's the case for most of us living in wealthier countries, where salaries are often 100 times higher than in many parts of the Global South. Your 1% can become an entire salary for someone in one of the poorest countries.

We also don't claim that 1% is enough. Perhaps you already donate to other causes or plan to give more in the future. That's excellent. Let us show you what's possible with your 1%: unconditional cash transfers directly to people in one of the world's poorest countries. No middlemen. No complicated overhead. Just direct help—the kind we'd hope for ourselves if roles were reversed.