drugstore_cowboy
Member
I volunteer for a local one, don't have a lot is spare cash and rather spend on my own family.
Donate tangible goods... Or your time.After I became an accountant I lost faith in charities. I don't donate anymore.
Talking about charity always makes me vaguely uncomfortable, which I guess might be due to the ethical/moral notion that telling people of your generosity makes it mean less. I don't actually believe that, but I act like I do. I dunno.
Anyway. I think it's useful to talk about, because it helps set a norm, it helps other people to form the idea that yes, charitable giving is something other people do, and that maybe I should do as well.
So yes. I have a charitable giving amount in my monthly budget. I don't generally give to those grocery store donation drives, or to people who stop you on the street asking for donations--I choose to give intentionally, not because I've been put on the spot, and in large chunks, not a few bucks every time I walk by. I've given to a variety of causes over the years, from the Red Cross to children's hospitals to Heifer to various forest-saving funds, and to Kiva, though that's not quite the same.
These days, I've been sold on the idea of efficient charity, of giving your money to the single most effective charity rather than spraying it around to a bunch of them that have caught your eye due to advertising. I generally follow GiveWell's recommendations, which means the Against Malaria Foundation, which distributes anti-mosquito bed nets in Africa that save children's lives, or GiveDirectly, which does what it sounds like and simply directly gives cash to poor households in developing nations (this has been shown to be a highly effective intervention, despite what you probably think intuitively--read about it on GiveWell!).
Ultimately, I think the Mormons have the right idea (you've probably never heard me say that before!). 10% of your income is a great goal to shoot for as far as an amount to give. I'm short of that amount personally, but I'm working on it. Actually, this thread has reminded me. I got a nice raise this year but didn't increase my giving accordingly. Hang on, going to go change my budget.
tl;dr
It's totally normal to give to charity, and everyone should do it (to the extent they can afford it--if you're just scraping by, commit to give to charity later in life, once you're set up more solidly). If you want to give but don't know where to start, go to GiveWell and choose one of their top recommended charities.
I do a ton of volunteer work around the city with kids and homeless people and every year i do donate toys/games to this local children's hospital and food whenever i can but i haven't put in enough research to any certain charity to donate to.
The 2 big things i would love to support is colon cancer and breast cancer but apparently you shouldn't donate to that one breast cancer lady because such a small % actually goes towards helping and research? If i was to donate i want 100% of the proceeds to go directly into helping and research.
Not sure I understand people who use overhead as the excuse either. Your dollar is still money they don't have for that cause. Even if only 5¢ would go to the cause, that's 5¢ they didn't have. Or you can go find a charity you like with lower overhead. If you can't afford it, okay. Just not sure I get the idea of generalizing charities as unworthy of your money due to overhead.I HATE THIS FUCKING MENTALITY.
okay, just had to get it out there. I hate it when people say they want 100% of the proceed to go directly into xx cause.
Like, okay, so do you not want the people working there to be paid? Do you want them to have electricity? do you not want them to work in a building? Do you not want them to
communicate with the outside world?
Instead of thinking of how they're using their money, think of how they're closer to accomplishing their Mission goals
Watch this: http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_pallotta_the_way_we_think_about_charity_is_dead_wrong?language=en
I HATE THIS FUCKING MENTALITY.
okay, just had to get it out there. I hate it when people say they want 100% of the proceed to go directly into xx cause.
Like, okay, so do you not want the people working there to be paid? Do you want them to have electricity? do you not want them to work in a building? Do you not want them to
communicate with the outside world?
Instead of thinking of how they're using their money, think of how they're closer to accomplishing their Mission goals
Watch this: http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_pallotta_the_way_we_think_about_charity_is_dead_wrong?language=en
Well I think everyone can agree that 100% is crazy but there's definitely charities with varying degrees of effectiveness and I'm not sure why that shouldn't be used as a gauge. Are you seriously trying to say all charities are created equal? There's plenty of shit charities that essentially pocket the money rather than using it how most would assume it's being spent.
This covers my giving in a nutshell. My wife and I try to give around ten percent of our take home each year after Christmas to a few charities that we believe in after having researched them. Pancreatic cancer action network, Front Steps and local rescue/animal shelters are the usual suspects.Yes. Actually, I'm going to c/p an old post of mine where I talk about it, because this still covers my position pretty well.:
I donated to Firefox and Wikipedia last year.
I haven't made any donations yet this year.
I will do so for the tiny tax dedication I receive.
Can the people who are claiming charities are scams, wasteful, or shady... what is your basis or justification for such a stance?
There are starving kids in Africa still using IE.
Who controls capital? The rich. Who controls charity? The rich. Who will slit a grandma's throat if it means making an additional penny? The rich. Yet, I'm supposed to believe that they're looking out for anyone other than themselves. They won't pay taxes, but they sure care about poor and sick folks? Keep thinking pink.They don't want to donate anything cause they are selfish so they make up an excuse in their own little minds.
Who controls capital? The rich. Who controls charity? The rich. Who will slit a grandma's throat if it means making an additional penny? The rich. Yet, I'm supposed to believe that they're looking out for anyone other than themselves. They won't pay taxes, but they sure care about poor and sick folks? Keep thinking pink.