People who have a small amount of disposable income, enough to cover basic necessities of life, and a few luxuries, who can afford to donate some of what they spend on things like candy, beer, Netflix, etc. should not necessarily give these up. If they do, their potential positive impact on the impoverished and starving is relatively small compared to that of billionaires. They can potentially move far more wealth by taking part in motivating the ultra-rich to use their massive influence to enact greater change. The massive inequalities of wealth on the planet create a situation in which enforcing medium-sized sacrifices from the wealthiest individuals can essentially prevent the worst struggles faced by the potential recipients of small-scale donations. Practically speaking, having every person who spends money on non-necessities donate the maximum amount they can is a virtual impossibility, and by encouraging those with a small amount of disposable income to give up the things they use to enrich their lives, the wealthiest people are essentially taken off the hook. They can use their influence to take credit for the donations of everyone who is actually sacrificing in order to make them. If $310 (The $200 mentioned by Singer, adjusted for inflation) could support one child from the age of two to the age of six, then if Jeff Bezos alone donated one tenth of his net worth, he could support 55 million children. The sacrifice entailed for him is nominal. Putting wide scale public effort into, say, legislation that would require that sort of behavior would have very little negative impact on the lives of the wealthy, almost none on those with little disposable income, and a huge positive impact for the recipients. By encouraging it, the people with a small amount of excess wealth would be able to provide far more than they could by directly donating.