Has your trust in charity been shaken lately?

by suavojr 29 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Magnum

  BackseatDevil - I see your point about not caring what those at the top make, but I disagree. Charities are by nature entities that should set a good example. Think about it; they are asking people to give - to sacrifice for the cause. Those at the tops of the charitable orgs should set an example of self-sacrifice. If the Jesus of the Bible was real, at least he set a good example in the area of self-sacrifice.

  Why, say if I'm making $30,000 per year, would I donate to the Humane Society if their top exec is making $300,000 per year? Let him donate $270,000 (by cutting his salary) so he's at my level; then we can each donate $100 per year. I'm sure he doesn't work harder than I do; he's not smarter than I am; he can't care about animals more than I do. Why should he make $300,000 per year? Let him put his money where his mouth is and set a good example.

  I agree with you that those at the bottom might do a great job; they might sacrifice much. But I don't have a gripe against them. It's the same with JWs; my gripe (in this case) is not with the rank and file; it's with the big shots who play corporate exec on the money of the rank and file.
• 

  BackseatDevil

  Is there any better display of being a good example than being at a disaster area before the clouds have cleared and a week before a government agency arrives? In this case, setting a good example is proven by their works.

  I'm NOT saying that scandal is justified. I'm not saying that overpayment of leaders is okay. In perspective, if you didn't know what anyone's dollar amount was, and you were ignorant to the price of the leader's paycheck, upon finding yourself in an isolated area with no food, no elecricity or clean water, and no way to protect yourself against the elements, they joy of getting help within hours will make you say, "Wow, thank you."

  You can't help but think, 'whatever their getting paid, it's worth it.' It's a completely selfish and one-sided way of looking at it... but if it's a good example that you are looking for, you will certainly find it in the Red Cross. But yes, you have to take the normal human factor into consideration... and that means sometimes greedy jerks get put in place. That's very normal. They are still a very good example to go by.

  (Maybe not the BEST example, however. The BEST example was the local Catholic church as their overhead went straight the liquor cabinet of the priest, and I certainly didn't have a problem with that... LOL.)
• 

  Mum

  I used to donate to the Boys' and Girls' Clubs in Reno when I lived there because they gave my granddaughter and other children free child care while their parents attended college classes. They actually had a facility right on campus.

  I don't like the Red Cross because I have seen them hound people to repay them for their "charity."

  I don't mind giving to Shriners' Hospitals for Children because they gave me hundreds of thousands of dollars' worth of free medical treatment in my childhood.

  I would check out any charity before handing over my hard-earned cash.

  Right now, most of my charitable giving is to UNICEF. I give them $15 a month to feed hungry children. If I have some good fortune, I clean out my pantry and donate food to the Salvation Army.

  In general, I think giving locally is probably a safer bet than giving cash to some "charity" that is not where you live.
• 

  villagegirl

  Backseat Devil - I think you made a very important point and backed it

  up with real on the ground experience. Knowing how to cut through red tape

  and get in there takes real expertise and strategy and planning that is the result

  of people at the top using their influence and muscle and getting at resources and

  forcing doors open to get through to those in need of immediate help, to say they

  don't know more than you do is delusional, they do know more and prove it in

  real performance and creative problem solving.

  Magnum: Most people work at jobs that are laid out for them, go here, do this,

  collect a paycheck and go home. You put this $30,000 type of guy in charge

  of a complex international operation and he wouldn't have a clue without his

  job description all typed out for him. That is the difference between 8-5 workers

  and CEO's and effective top administrators, who actually can move things

  forward and get things done, its a real skill set.

  Thats why they get the big bucks, because few can do it.
• 

  Splash

  Some charities have high administrative or fund-raising costs, leaving only a small portion of the collected money for the intended purpose.

  It's also good to remember that advertising works.

  If these charities didn't advertise then who would know to donate to them?
  By spending money on advertising, even more money is raised for the charity.

  So even if "only a small portion" is used for the charity, it's still more than if they had not fund-raised.
  eg 30% of a million dollars is $300,000. 100% of nothing is nothing.

  What do you think all of the WT meeting items discussing money are for?
  Why mention 'the deficit' at every assembly?
  These are nothing more than fund raising talks.

  The WT needs to recognise that not every charity has the luxury of a captive audience to pressure for donations.

  Splash.
• 

  Splash

  And another thought.

  At least we can find out how much a charity CEO is earning and decide for ourselves if they are worth it.

  Who can tell me the cost of the GB?

  Splash.
• 

  suavojr

  Who can tell me the cost of the GB?

  All expenses paid for life and trips to any part of the world for free.
• 

  redvip2000

  You can't have the same expections for a multinational huge charitable organization, that you have for a local small one.

  An organization like the Red Cross has a large overhead. Once you are that big, you need a proper structure in place. They need to be run like a real company, because they really are one, and that costs a lot of money, so if at the end of they day 20 - 30 % of the revenue actually goes to helping others, it's still reasonable. It doesn't seem fair, but that's the cost of having an organization who can mobilize things in a worldwide scale.

  When you donate to the local corner church, your should expect a higher percentage of monies to be used to help others. Perhaps the local church only needs 2 people and a van to go help others; they probably don't need much structure aside from their goodwill, so their expenses are minimum.
• 

  EndofMysteries

  A note on charties 'advertisting' costs. Some charties are major scams, almost all of their money goes to advertisting costs. The charity is set up, the leaders get big salaries, and they have ties if not outright owners of the companies that they pay to do the advertisting.
• 

  BackseatDevil

  I think charities that are scams (for me personally, specifically involving that of the military) are most tragic as they are not only just self-serving assholes, but there is a bit of social betrayal... and that is hard for people to overcome in general.

  I didn't actually understand the nature of the initial question because I'm not sure how my faith in charity ever gets shaken. Long-standing organizations have history. As long as someone somewhere is getting whatever assistance, then that is more than any one of us are doing. I tend to give personal leeway as long as the scales are tipped in favor of the recipients, but upon that flip where more is giving to themselves than others, I back out. I think the Human Rights Campaign is a good example of this missus of funds.

  But nothing, even the worst of money usage, shakes my trust in charities simply because I have great faith in humanity as a whole... I have faith in the overall good, and the easily declarable negative. Just like I know people will step in to render aid more often than not, I also know people can exhibit greed if given a chance more often than not. This is all normal.

  We are so trained by the WTBTS to expect flawless perfection from others because we were given the guidance of an infallible Governing Body. And if some person, group of people, or organization fails to deliver, it is “proof” that they are not as “good” as the WTBTS or ourselves because, in our own minds we are great people). That level of expectation is instilled in us and is unmatched to anything in reality of the outside world.

  It's unmatched because that level of perfection doesn't exist. I think once we understand where the natural wave and deviation of the midpoint that is normal, then we start seeing things less competitively and with more allowable movement where the overall good can shine through. If one cannot see that perspective in an organization, DON'T DONATE TO THAT ORGANIZATION. Organizations with transparency are key.