You have agreed with Peter Singer, who thinks it is wrong to spend money on luxuries, like new clothes, when we could use it to help the many people currently in need.
Singer says that this is morally equivalent to walking past a child drowning in a pond because you don’t want to get your new clothes muddy.
But how much money must we give away? Suppose I have already given a lot of money away to famine relief - is there a point at which I can refuse to give any more because I have already given so much away? Does having given this amount of money away also make it okay for me to walk past the drowning child?