are there "Too Many" Charities theses days?

Chiliagon

Prime Minister
May 16, 2010
2,116
3
38
Spruce Grove, Alberta
so I see locally where I am (Edmonton) that there are a lot of charities who are saying that they're way below their goals they want to achieve and they seem to be trying to make people feel guillty and donate to them.

I wonder to myself, are there too many?

like I first off cannot afford to donate to all these charities, so in order not to feel guilty I don't donate to anyone, that way there isn't one left out.

heck these days, a lot of people aren't exactly able to afford to give money to everyone!

I don't appreciate the way they do it though as well. talking and writing like "you need to donate or we're gonna starve!!"

let's not have 100 charities who all demand your buck..
 

wulfie68

Council Member
Mar 29, 2009
2,014
24
38
Calgary, AB
I donate to those that are nearer and dearer to my experience. My biggies are the SPCA, Sally Ann and Heart & Stroke Foundation. I also give to the United Way and other organizations at time. I don't tend to give to out-of-country causes as much because I am a big believer that we need to fix whats wrong with our own community/country before we start trying to start on other peoples' problems.

Charity isn't something that should evoke guilt in denial: if you don't want to give, you have no obligation to. As for whether or not there are too many, I think as long as there is a need filled by the group, they have a right to exist.
 

Walter

Hall of Fame Member
Jan 28, 2007
34,843
92
48
We have too much government and not enough charity and charities.
 

TenPenny

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 9, 2004
17,466
138
63
Location, Location
The United Way was started by Mrs Henry Ford for this very reason. Instead of 75 charities asking for money, there would be one central fundraiser.
 

Machjo

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 19, 2004
17,878
61
48
Ottawa, ON
so I see locally where I am (Edmonton) that there are a lot of charities who are saying that they're way below their goals they want to achieve and they seem to be trying to make people feel guillty and donate to them.

I wonder to myself, are there too many?

like I first off cannot afford to donate to all these charities, so in order not to feel guilty I don't donate to anyone, that way there isn't one left out.

heck these days, a lot of people aren't exactly able to afford to give money to everyone!

I don't appreciate the way they do it though as well. talking and writing like "you need to donate or we're gonna starve!!"

let's not have 100 charities who all demand your buck..

I never have such problems. I give to one charity regularly, and one other I might give to on occasion. Besides those two, I never give money to any charity. That said, I might give of my time and direct resources to a particular third charity on the rare occasion.

Besides that, I never give money or any other resource to any other charity or beggar.

Just today I saw one woman give a cigarette to a man sitting on the street. I wanted to slap her. If he's addicted to cigarettes and can't afford housing, helping him to maintain his addiction is not exactly the way to help him.

I might sound cold-hearted here, but the thing is, I want to make sure all my money goes towards helping people and not hindering them. Giving an addict money is not the same as helping him. Helping him means giving to a charity you have researched well and know you can trust, for it to provide help to the poor in a planned and systematic manner that assures that the money actually goes towards helping and not hindering the poor.

If we eached researched a particular charity well and then, once we'd established that it's a reliable charity, made a habit of contributing to it regularly, then other charitie would quickly realise that their efforts to try to get our money is pointless.

I never get too bothered by so many charities. If you are, it may be that you gave to all of them indiscriminately in the past and are now on everyone's sucker list.

That should pretty well cover it, maybe World Vision for the kids overseas...
And needy TV advertisers at home.

None of the charities I give to spend much on advertizing. My primary and regular charity doesn't at all, and its leadership itself is unpaid, plus it's a totally grass-roots endeavour. My secondary charity that I may give to on occasion is UNICEF. Though it does spend some money on advertizing on its products such as UNICEF card shops, UNICEF Hallow'een boxes, etc. It's still better than most. But any charity that advertizes as much a World Vision should be a right off. Clearly half of their money is just going to TV advertizing. Besides, World Vision is a Christian charity; do you not have a more efficient grassroots charity you can give to to your Church? Most religious charities I'd come across, regardless of religion, do tend to be quite grassroots and efficient. World Vision bucks the rule big time. It's probably more inefficient than even most secular charities. Heck, UNICEF is secular and even it is more efficient than World Vision owing to less advertizing overhead. World Vision is what we might call a commercial charity.
 

gerryh

Time Out
Nov 21, 2004
25,756
295
83
short answer to the question.....yes and no..... the number of charities required today, is a direct, and poor, reflection on our society.
 

Machjo

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 19, 2004
17,878
61
48
Ottawa, ON
short answer to the question.....yes and no..... the number of charities required today, is a direct, and poor, reflection on our society.

I find giving to a charity is empowering, since that way I have a say in where my money goes, to ensure it actually goes towards improving society rather than lining the pocketbooks of bureaucrats. You should try it some time; it feels good to give.

If taxes absolutely have to rise, then I'd hope that more of our taxes become charity-deductible too. That way those of us who give already won't even notice the tax increase.

;)
 

JLM

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 27, 2008
75,301
547
113
Vernon, B.C.
I don't see any problem with a Christian Charity, Machjo, I would never denigrate say a Sihk Charity or a Shinto Charity. Salvation Army is a Christian Charity and is the most efficient Charity in the country and like a true Christian they serve all creeds.

I find giving to a charity is empowering, since that way I have a say in where my money goes, to ensure it actually goes towards improving society rather than lining the pocketbooks of bureaucrats. You should try it some time; it feels good to give.

If taxes absolutely have to rise, then I'd hope that more of our taxes become charity-deductible too. That way those of us who give already won't even notice the tax increase.

;)

Yes and no Machjo- unless you are very careful (Sally Ann is one of the few exceptions) a big chunk of your donation goes to supporting bureaucrats (a polite term for parasites) and tax break you get amounts to about 17% of f**k all.
 

Machjo

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 19, 2004
17,878
61
48
Ottawa, ON
I don't see any problem with a Christian Charity, Machjo, I would never denigrate say a Sihk Charity or a Shinto Charity. Salvation Army is a Christian Charity and is the most efficient Charity in the country and like a true Christian they serve all creeds.

I don't give to the Salvation Army myself (not because I don't like them but simply that I have my own list of charities already as mentioned above), and though I don't know much about their operations, it doesn't take a genious to figure out that it's probably much worthier than World Vision, simply owing to the absence of expensive adverts.

And you're absolutely right about religious charities. Again, World Vision is an exception here. Otherwise, most religious charities simply operate from within their respective religious communities at the grassroots, either at church, the religious community centre, etc. collected by volunteers and passed on through the already established worldwide organizational structure of that religious organization to the needier communities.

The Salvation Army is a little different in that respect in that it does collect from outside its religious community too, though as far as I know, the collectors are all volunteers, and so it's probably still better than many charities.

As for secular charities, though they are usually less efficient and bureaucratic owing to the lack of an already established grassroots community and administrative worldwide structure, UNICEF might be an exception. Even UNICEF is probably somewhat less efficient owing to the lack of the structure mentioned above, but like the Salvation Army, it doesn't waste too much on advertizing either. I do believe that its higher management is paid though, so still not the best charity, merely among the best when it comes to secular charities.

I don't see any problem with a Christian Charity, Machjo, I would never denigrate say a Sihk Charity or a Shinto Charity. Salvation Army is a Christian Charity and is the most efficient Charity in the country and like a true Christian they serve all creeds.



Yes and no Machjo- unless you are very careful (Sally Ann is one of the few exceptions) a big chunk of your donation goes to supporting bureaucrats (a polite term for parasites) and tax break you get amounts to about 17% of f**k all.

No, I'm thinking of a 100% charity-deductible income and wealth tax at a 1:1 ratio. But of course it will never happen because the issue is not that we accept our responsibility to society, but that our money goes where 'they' want our money to go.
 

JLM

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 27, 2008
75,301
547
113
Vernon, B.C.
I don't give to the Salvation Army myself (not because I don't like them but simply that I have my own list of charities already as mentioned above), and though I don't know much about their operations, it doesn't take a genious to figure out that it's probably much worthier than World Vision, simply owing to the absence of expensive adverts.

And you're absolutely right about religious charities. Again, World Vision is an exception here. Otherwise, most religious charities simply operate from within their respective religious communities at the grassroots, either at church, the religious community centre, etc. collected by volunteers and passed on through the already established worldwide organizational structure of that religious organization to the needier communities.

The Salvation Army is a little different in that respect in that it does collect from outside its religious community too, though as far as I know, the collectors are all volunteers, and so it's probably still better than many charities.

As for secular charities, though they are usually less efficient and bureaucratic owing to the lack of an already established grassroots community and administrative worldwide structure, UNICEF might be an exception. Even UNICEF is probably somewhat less efficient owing to the lack of the structure mentioned above, but like the Salvation Army, it doesn't waste too much on advertizing either. I do believe that its higher management is paid though, so still not the best charity, merely among the best when it comes to secular charities.



No, I'm thinking of a 100% charity-deductible income and wealth tax at a 1:1 ratio. But of course it will never happen because the issue is not that we accept our responsibility to society, but that our money goes where 'they' want our money to go.

I don't know a lot about "World Vision" (I have donated a couple of paltry sums to them), one good thing about them you can choose exactly where your money goes (food, medicine, books, building sewer systems etc.) I've always considered Alex Trebek to be a wise and honest man and he is a champion of World Vision....................so I personally wouldn't bad mouth it.
 

Machjo

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 19, 2004
17,878
61
48
Ottawa, ON
I don't know a lot about "World Vision" (I have donated a couple of paltry sums to them), one good thing about them you can choose exactly where your money goes (food, medicine, books, building sewer systems etc.) I've always considered Alex Trebek to be a wise and honest man and he is a champion of World Vision....................so I personally wouldn't bad mouth it.

World Vision may be good in every other way. I know little about it too except for one thing: especially around Christmas time, it clearly spends waddles of money on TV advertising. I can't think of any other charity, religious or secular, that has as many TV adverts as World Vision.
 

JLM

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 27, 2008
75,301
547
113
Vernon, B.C.
World Vision may be good in every other way. I know little about it too except for one thing: especially around Christmas time, it clearly spends waddles of money on TV advertising. I can't think of any other charity, religious or secular, that has as many TV adverts as World Vision.

On that point I have to agree, as quite often just before the noon news on the local channel they run a 5 minute ad. BUT on the other side of the coin I bet they end up with more money for the cause by doing that than if they didn't. I don't think it's very realistic to expect all the workers to be volunteers (in the strictest sense of the word) they have to eat pay rent, etc. like everyone else) although I know there are young volunteers who do it for their beans and a sleeping bag.
 

Machjo

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 19, 2004
17,878
61
48
Ottawa, ON
On that point I have to agree, as quite often just before the noon news on the local channel they run a 5 minute ad. BUT on the other side of the coin I bet they end up with more money for the cause by doing that than if they didn't. I don't think it's very realistic to expect all the workers to be volunteers (in the strictest sense of the word) they have to eat pay rent, etc. like everyone else) although I know there are young volunteers who do it for their beans and a sleeping bag.

I will agree that sometimes for a large organization some full time paid staff is required ast a reasonable salary. That said, while all thi advertizing does indeed bring in more contributions, it's also bringing in contributions that would otherwise have been given to a more grassroots charity that does not spend half of its money on advertizing. Looking at it that way, World Vision is being unfair to other charities and its contributors on the grounds that other charities, should they choose to ensure more of their money go to actual development rather than advertizing, they are forced to accept that they will lose money out to World Vision.

Now on the other hand, that's a decision for each charity and contributor to decide. Some people will go for the glitz and glamour of the charity in question. More cool TV adverts and catchy songs bring in more money.

Others, like myself, will actually be repelled by such superficial organizations and so will go out of our way to find an organization that does not spend so much on advertizing, a more no-frills-no-gimicks type of charity. For instance, in none of the charities I give to do I get to decide to what individual child my money goes to, etc. The reason for this is that the money has to be spent in a more holistic manner. That said, it is also much more transparent and we get to vote for the local administration every year, and they are unpaid, at least at the local level. It is also religious and so not open to the general public.

I also give to UNICEF on occasion. With UNICEF too I don't get to decide who gets my money, and that makes sense.

All these gimmicks about deciding little details is a marketing ploy to make you feel closer to your 'sponsored child', even though the money is actually pooled for the community as a whole. Add to this that if they have to link you to a child, then they have to spend more money on photographers, postage stamps, etc. to keep the letter writing going etc to maintain the marketing. That's not the same as resources being focussed in a targeted manner to development. It's just another extension of the advertizing glitz. That's why even without knowing much about World Vision, I don't need to dig very deep to see it's all glitz and glamour and little substance. Not to denigrate the actual good work it sodes of course, but merely how inefficient it is.

Looking at it that way, those looking for a no-frills-no-gimmicks type of charity are likely going to turn to either their local religious community charity or if secular then to something like UNICEF, also relatively no-frills-no-gimmicks. They'll establish a loyal and reular base of consistent support over many years. Others like World Vision will get support from the unthinking until they do start to think and then they too will likely eventually turn to the no-frills variety. Looking at it that way, World Vision is mostly attracting newer and less experienced contributors most likely.
 

Machjo

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 19, 2004
17,878
61
48
Ottawa, ON
I should perhaps mention the United Way too. I used to volunteer for a United Way organization, and from making contacts involved with the United Way, I'd learnt that the United Way too spends much of its valuable resources often arguing and fighting over where the money will go. That's the only criticism I've heard of the United Way though, so if that's the case, then a simple solution for those who do give to the United Way is to earmark your funds to a specific organization, or even skip the United Way altogether along with it overhead costs and give directly to the organization you want to give to. Cut out the middle man as much as possible.

And if you don't have much time to volunteer, then still meet up regularly to still get to know the organization from within. Once you find the right one, give to that organization only and regularly and that way you know your money is going where it ought to. More effort, but it's worth it in the end.
 

mayety

Nominee Member
Jul 18, 2010
74
0
6
British Columbia
There are too many charities, as most/a lot of them are scams. They take your money and after paying hefty salaries with it, the rest, like maybe $1.59, goes to the charity itself.

One that I couldn't believe and was involved with directly as a spinal cord injured person, was the Canadian Paraplegic Association. I was in Ontario at the time and The Head Office was in Toronto. I lived in Peterborough and we had a Chapter. I was Chairperson and also did the Fundraising...every Sunday evening I would attend the Bingo Hall, as the CPA rep, and oversee the bingo, count the profits and also, as Treasurer, deposit into the bank on the Monday. We pulled in $25M-$30M a year.

When we wanted to do something for the Peterborough Community, we had to receive permission from Head Office........
Well the end result was in small print, and if Head Office was in financial troubles (like couldn't pay the salaries) they could take the monies raised by the Chapters.....which it did!!!!!! every lastr cent!

(We closed the Chapter and joined another that would keep our income in the Community.)

I've heard awful stories about Girl Guides.....remember there is always staff to oversee everything and all staff will have to be paid first!
 
Last edited:

GreenFish66

House Member
Apr 16, 2008
2,717
10
38
www.myspace.com
I don't like when Charites or anyone hounds people for donations/Money.
However, ...Having said that... A person( like someone from the Salvation Army/Sally Anne;)) standing by a donation bowl ,smiling pleasantly, doesn't offend me.

Find a Charity you like to Donate to .Giving anything's better than nothing ..

If you have nothing, don't feel guilty for giving nothing ..I don't think it's in any Charities best interest to make anyone feel guilty, for having nothing.
 

gerryh

Time Out
Nov 21, 2004
25,756
295
83
I find giving to a charity is empowering, since that way I have a say in where my money goes, to ensure it actually goes towards improving society rather than lining the pocketbooks of bureaucrats. You should try it some time; it feels good to give.

If taxes absolutely have to rise, then I'd hope that more of our taxes become charity-deductible too. That way those of us who give already won't even notice the tax increase.

;)


Zoooooom...missed my point, no surprise.