Along Queen's St
I was just shopping with Amanda today, along Queen's St this afternoon, during lunchtime, when this lady approached us both on sponsoring a child in some third-world undeveloped country. She wasn't keen to talk to me, of course, since I wasn't of the right age, but she tried to convince Amanda to donate $1 a day to help these poor and unforunate children all around the world. She explained that all the money was for a good cause and that it would help these children greatly.I interupted her and asked, "You mean all 100% of your donations will go towards these children?" She stared at me and replied, "No, 90%. No one gives 100% these days."
I assume she's refering to charity organizations in general when she said "no one"?
I don't mean to sound heartless but I honestly think that some these charity organizations out there are nothing but hypocrites.. and possibly fraudulent. If one is truly for helping the poor and less fortunate, why would you even take 10% of the donations and keep it for yourself? Charity should be voluntary. In my opinon, it seems as though these organizations are taking advantage of these poor people and trying to make a business out of it. How can you feel good about helping someone when you have part of the donations sitting in your pocket? People donate with the intention to help others, not pay people to help others.. right? Doesn't that just defeat the whole purpose of charity in the first place? They say that a dollar goes a long way.. So if I give $10 a week, and the charity organization takes 10% (which means $1), isn't that robbing the poor of $1 towards a better life?
I'd feel better about donating my money to some of these organizations when I know that all the money I've given to the poor is being used for the sole benefit of the poor. I don't like the idea that part of my money is going into paying the salary of some CEO of whatever charity organization. If all these CEOs and managers are so keen to help, and at the same, feed themselves, then why not get a separate 40hr-week job and help the poor for free in their spare time? Wouldn't that make it more justifiable then?
I'd think that that is what real charity is.
Give because you can, because you want to and please, do it whole-heartedly.
Otherwise, it's not really giving at all, is it?
Image: Google
By
David Farrar, at
1:58 pm
Red Cross passes on 100% of all donations tagged for overseas work, without deducting any admin costs or overheads. I think SCF does the same.
The charities which advertise all the time on TV like World Vision can and do deduct up to 30% to cover the marketing etc.
By
Anonymous, at
9:55 pm
hMm.. This is very interesting.. Never did knew all about these.. Shows how much i care ehh?! =p
By
Anonymous, at
8:38 pm
I think that supporting any charity is good - a "normal" everyday person wouldn't even know about the plight of the poor and the children who live in poverty etc if it weren't for these people. This is regardless of if they have to use 10% to actually get people to become aware, or fund the pamphlets and administration expenses which are unavoidable costs. I don't think the money is going to themselves, but rather to the campaign as a whole which is fine with me.
I do, however, think that charities should probably tell people where their money goes exactly since it's basically false advertising otherwise, like you said.
By
Anonymous, at
1:17 am
I like them purrrrty shoes.
» Post a Comment