Greetings to all readers and enthusiasts of the entire Hive ecosystem. It's been a long time since I last shared my thoughts here. I decided to start using #LeoFinance or now more broadly as #InLeo. It feels more aligned with my topics, I guess. Plus, I'm now converting my earnings into $LEO. So curation helps a bit, of course.
Getting back to the topic of this post.
Have you ever stopped to think about what would happen if everyone were legally required to donate 1 dollar per month to charity?
It seems like a small amount, right? One dollar today barely buys a coffee, but when multiplied by millions of people, it can become a powerful force. At the same time, the word mandatory bothers a lot of people and for good reason. I found myself thinking a lot about this after reading some forum discussions and comment sections on news sites. So I decided to share some of my thoughts and raise a few points with you, the reader.
First, let’s do a simple calculation here.
In a country with 100 million inhabitants, a mandatory donation of 1 dollar per month would collect 100 million dollars monthly.
What does that mean? 1.2 billion per year.
Image created using Midjourney
That's enough money to sustain thousands of social projects, feed millions of families, build affordable housing, provide basic healthcare, and much more. In other words, the potential is undeniable. But then comes the central question that anyone who disagrees could raise: Is it right to force someone to do charity?
Charity, by definition, should come from the heart. When we help someone out of our own will, the emotional and human value is completely different. But if the State enforces it, is it still charity? Or does it just become another tax with a different name?
Some people in the forums I read said this would just be another way for the government to control people’s money and it’s a valid concern. After all, what guarantees that these resources would really be well used? Corruption, misappropriation, poor management… it’s not like we have full confidence in those handling the public budget. And then, instead of helping, the money just becomes another statistic.
Remind me in the comments to post this on Reddit…
Others argued that it would be like a “minimum civic contribution.” A symbolic collective commitment a way for everyone to help improve the country in some way. There are people who pay taxes and never see the return. But if this dollar had full transparency if every month a report showed where the money went maybe people would see it differently.
But here's a critical point I’ve been thinking about: what about those who can’t even afford that 1 dollar?
It may sound silly, but there are people who really don’t have it.
And then we face another issue:
A mandatory charge...
Even if small, it affects the poor the most. It’s regressive. For a billionaire, a dollar is nothing. For someone earning minimum wage and supporting a family, every coin matters. So would it be fair to exempt people with very low income? Maybe. But that also opens the door to fraud and increases bureaucracy.
Another argument against it is the following: there are already taxes that, in theory, should serve this purpose. The State already collects a lot of money from all of us with the promise of providing healthcare, education, housing. So why create a new charge in the name of “charity”? Why not improve the use of what's already collected?
On the flip side, I read an interesting comment that stuck with me: “if we're already forced to pay for so many useless or poorly managed things, why not be forced to pay for something that truly helps someone?” Makes sense. If 1 dollar a month can save a life, feed a child, get someone off the streets, isn’t it worth it?
But the mandatory part still bothers me.
My personal opinion? I think the project would only work if it had three pillars.
Those are: total transparency, choice, and incentive not punishment.
Transparency: Clearly show where the money goes. No sugarcoating. If it went to a hospital, show which one, how many people were treated, what results were achieved.
Choice: Allow citizens to choose the type of cause they want to support health, education, environment, housing, hunger relief. This creates a real sense of participation and connects people to what they believe in.
Incentive: Instead of punishing those who don’t pay, how about rewarding those who do? It could be symbolic benefits, recognition, even small tax perks. Nobody likes being forced, but many people are motivated when they feel valued.
Why not make this system work with blockchain technology?
Traceable donations, automated, with smart contracts that transfer funds directly to approved institutions. Fully visible, auditable, and free of intermediaries. Now that could build trust.
But wait, that’s not the focus of this post, nor do I think this is the place to go deep into that.
At the end of the day, the idea of mandatory $1 donations per month sounds great in theory, but it’s risky if poorly executed. It could become a disguised tax, be misused, and lose the spirit of charity. But it could also become one of the most effective and symbolic public policies ever created if well thought-out and well communicated.