The question I think you are asking is, "If you give your money to the government, you don't know where it goes. Perhaps it is wasted. If you give it to people you know need it locally, you can have immediate results. Why push for the former?"
If I've understood you correctly, that's a totally valid question, and it's one I think about quite a bit. I could, for instance, really focus on helping people in my immediate area. I could buy a lot of meals for a lot of people.
But ultimately, I think I can achieve more by organizing. If I can spend some money on mutual aid to help out some folks locally, and spend some on building coalitions and participating in collective action, I think I ultimately achieve more.
Example: We have a homelessness industrial complex in California. Our taxes go more towards paying activists and those who work with the homeless rather than building homes. The only way to get rid of homelessness is to build homes. It’s not like you can talk your way out of street living with talk therapy. While a portion need help..all of them need to be off of the streets. When California shows some results, I will consider supporting more taxation.
We also need crisis intervention, counseling, drug programs, and support.
I want to share more re problem statement/solution strategy..but a little busy now. I hope to revisit this at some other time. I just have to find it for a quick cut and paste from where I had written earlier. Cheers.
People who look out for themselves and their family only and who wants to make public goods into a voluntarist thing through charities are the problem. They are of no use to anyone except their immediates and are only holding progress back.