Presumably the answer to both questions posed in this blog's title is at least now in C21 often, "Yes", as home is where most people first learn how to live and discern as they develop from childhood towards adulthood, which hopefully is attained by many yet large Government resources are also used to pay aid etc on which more below.
Part of many people's human development involves an appreciation of the lives of fellow human beings and the hardships that occur. Being afflicted by hardship or worse at least from time to time, is part of the human condition. That there are so many human beings living on the planet does mean that hardships abound as obviously do the happier aspects of life. Essentially questions can arise as to what hardships affecting some people should others try to ameliorate? These questions lead to a number of sub questions such as how best to attempt amelioration, whose hardships to concentrate upon who or what should be responsible for trying to ameliorate them and as importantly as the other questions, what individual responsibility does one have?
In the UK and elsewhere in Europe there is a sophisticated form of state support for those suffering certain hardships often including financial. Even so many needy people still fall outside the scope of the State's safety net. Others who at particular moments in time have reasonable personal resources, have to consider what, to whom and how to provide private support. A difficulty is that there are so many needing support both locally and internationally that very few individuals can on there own make much of a positive impact on relieving others burdens. That presumably is where combining with other people to achieve significant public benefits can be crucial. For example charities which set up teams of runners for the London Marathon each year combine individuals' personal fund raising and endurance efforts and produce £millions for the charities which their runners select. Similarly, where friends or colleagues commit themselves to a particular cause and seek support for their chosen 'charity' then such support often seems well worthwhile.
National governmental 'aid' payments however I am more sceptical about. Government 'Aid' often seems to have non-charitable-type strings attached. For example India is a country the economic growth of which is increasing fast. There are many wealthy people there but even more Indians still live in poverty. Should this disparity which exists to some extent everywhere including in the UK, be for the locals to tackle or should third parties try to intervene. Just thinking about that question briefly, leads (me) to the former answer namely local answers are best. That answer then causes me to speculate that British aid to India today is probably affected by much national self interest. Doubtless this applies as much to other countries national aid as to that from the UK; still relieving poverty for the poor and destitute is bound to be worthwhile even if the motives are imperfect, personally I am content to let that continue.
On the other hand some 'charity' or 'aid' payments particularly those at governmental level, give the impression of adding to rather than detracting from human misery. Support made by states to factions in Syria however well intentioned, seem to me to fall into that category. I wonder however about the intentions leading to that kind of quasi-charitable giving. Ultimately the givers are seeking some development in their favour. In my humble opinion that type of hidden agenda renders the financial payment a non charitable if not actually counter productive transaction, which I would not support.
I wonder if the State is now too involved with charitable giving in a way which is substantially diluting personal responsibility towards the under privileged. This question is possibly relevant to many of both Bitish and other, domestic and international arrangements.
I may be wrong but I wonder if the comparatively recent development in the UK as regards ceding much more independence to the Bank of England than was the case a few years ago, would also be beneficial if applied to state funded international aid and maybe heaven forbid, even some more domestic social security payments? The state would need to set the budget but the difficult prioritising decisions would be the responsibility of non-politicians.