Quote:
Originally Posted by xg4bx
lol thats kind of why i don't give money to charity. why should i when 90 cents out of every dollar goes to employees and the ceo. however i would give money directly to someone who needed it...../..
|
Please pardon my forthrightness, but that is nonsense.....
First - and admittedly, a humanistic point - even if only 10% went to the intended recipients, it is at least 10% more than they had in the first place, and you could almost certainly afford to give the 90 + 10% anyway - at least you're doing
some good.... [An altruistic point, true, but applicable if you really want to help the humanitarian cause concerned.]
Secondly, very few legitimate/reputable charity organisations have anywhere near that ratio of expenses to final "pay-out". In some -usually locally-based concerns- it is the exact opposite.
So, if the ratio upsets you, find charities that have a good balance of expense to donation. It is logical that the larger, more global, operations -like Oxfam, WaterAid, etc..- cost more to operate, but they also get to the most needy.
But if you do give directly to someone who is without, fair enough, it's your preference - but please don't slag off the great number of charities that do an amazing job of maintaining at least my faith in humanity.
We've all - even in these days of "suffering" for us by lowering our expectations - still got a lot more than the most needy in the world.
Rant over....
