|
1
Nerd-It
|
|
blog (coffee shop)
by Charity seems to come in two forms: research and development, and covering a cost now. Research and development charities often seem better to me as they are an investment of sorts. With R&D, what you give is used to achieve some greater state, like curing a disease, educating a population, or developing ways for people to live positive lives at an early stage. On the other hand, some charities spend your money or time immediately to do things like feed starving children, build a low income family a home, or give a child a present on Christmas.
While both methods strive to better the world around us, I often wonder about the comparative effectiveness of the two. Is one method better than the other? Is it cold-blooded to turn your back on a starving child in order to offer assistance to R&D programs with hopes that the starving population will be less of a problem in the future due to newly developed systems and processes? When you feel the urge to give, how do you choose who gets your time and/or money?
Star This to Save in Your Profile 
Add a Comment (3)
Email This
Message Author
Statistics
Thread parent sort order:
Thread verbosity:
While you're looking at that year-end statement, see what percentage of your donation actually goes to programs as opposed to overhead (mass mailings, salaries of well-paid "nonprofit" employees, office space, etc). Some charities are very inefficient. I prefer charities with 5% or less, and will not give to any with more than 10% in expenses.
Government employees:
Before your money even gets to your charity of choice, the CFC takes approximately 10% of your donation for its own administrative costs. In other words, 10% of your monthly alottment goes to print a bunch of books and pay some fat GS-15 to only work four months out ot the year and go on fat TDY assignments to train volunteer "keypersons" who actually do the leg work.
Talk about a government boondoggle! By eschewing the CFC you might incur your battalion commander's wrath, but 10% more money will go to the charities of your choice. It takes more discipline to make a donation every month (versus an alottment) but the bottom line is it helps more people.
I was a big CFC supporter and a keyperson for two years, until I realized they were taking 10% to be the middleman between you and organizations that actually help people.
If I wanted to get ripped off by a middleman I would still be a First Command client!
This comment has 1 reply.
RSS
"God doesn't want a trust fund" by jmarkdavison :: NR6 :: Show
This isn't a direct answer to your question, but I read the above line in a book once and it has stuck with me.
Basically it answers the question of whether we ought to save up our money all our life and then give it away when we're old or dead, or if we should give our tithes regularly.
On the charity continuum, I think on the most immediate end there is the office collection, the Salvation Army bell ringer, the firemen standing at the stoplight. These play on our charitable instincts and our desire to do something immediate (or our desire not to look like we don't care). Slightly less immediate but still in this category is the mail you get, you know after you send a check to one charity and they sell your name and address to sixty others. Those usually have pictures of sad kids or "gifts" like address labels, and they want you to feel obligated to give something in return for whatever trinket they gave you. Another tactic I have seen used by my favorite think-tank is sending envelopes with actual stamps affixed to them, presumably so you'll feel compelled to send them a check since they already gave you a stamp.
The next category up is planned giving- something you have thought about and for which you've set up a pay alottment or bank draft. I think these are the best option because there's no surface emotion involved. From a religious standpoint, disciplined, regular giving is right in line with God's commandments (although handing a five to the bum on the street is also good, even if he's "just going to buy liquor with it"). From a secular standpoint, it's also good to put charity first. This is what I do. Of course, the 9/11 and Katrina telethons got to me and I sent money, and then in both cases the government and Red Cross wasted millions and many "victims" are now millionaires. Next time a big disaster happens I'll give to Wal-Mart and let their efficient practices use more of my dollars to actually help people.
I don't know much about the R&D charities. I guess the American Heart Association would fall in that category. It seems to me the drug companies that everyone likes to bogeyman for "ripping off consumers" are the manifestation of "let the market take care of it," which I believe, and besides which the heart/cancer/AIDS foundations are not going broke. Most of their funding comes from the government anyway.
It should be noted, that whatever cause you give to, the US government dwarfs anything we individuals give. Check your charity's year-end statement if you don't believe me. Cancer charities, religious charities, political causes, you name it, double-digit percentages of their funding comes from Uncle Sam. So even if you don't give a dime at Christmas or any other time, you're giving every paychceck through your taxes. Pat yourself on the back.