With thousands of children dying preventable deaths every day in many parts of the world it truly is immoral for people to spend money on things that they do not really need. This is your opinion or Singer's?

Peter Singer states that "it is morally indefensible to spend money on luxuries while the less fortunate are dying" (Rachel and Rachel 154). This is true, but the question then becomes how much one should give. Singer says that "there will always be another child whose life you can save" (158). This is also true, and utilitarian’s would argue that one should keep giving until everyone was at the same level the giver is at. This would most certainly prove to be very difficult for most people to do. It's also very difficult for most people to never lie. Does this change our moral obligation regarding lying?

Instead of setting the bar idealistically high, setting a bar is idealistic by nature; do you mean "unrealistically high" it may be better to propose that people pay, say, 2.5% of their wealth, not income, to charity. This amount could serve as the minimum that one would be expected to give. This would work similar to the way that one is expected to help when they witness a stranger in danger. One can only be liable to do what can be accomplished with minimal risk to oneself. 2.5% of one's wealth, the money left over after living expenses, will not hurt anyone. (Except the children who will die of starvation and disease, of course.) Singer states that "An American household with an income of 50,000 dollars spends around 30,000 dollars annually on necessities" (Rachels and Rachels 160). If the average family gave even just $500 a year, it would make a great difference.

I think you haven't addressed everything Singer would like to see you address, but so far, so good.