- Joined
- Jun 11, 2009
- Messages
- 19,657
- Reaction score
- 8,454
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
I absolutely refuse to give money to charitable organizations. I think that it is a generational thing and most baby boomers I share that sentiment with actually seem offended by it. If I do give money to people I prefer to do it directly or donate time or goods instead. The overhead costs of modern charities are absurd. The Children's Charity Fund, for example, spends 93 cents of every dollar donated on administrative costs, which does not seem very helpful for children. That isn't even unusual! And I hear far right conservatives and libertarians harking on charity as a great free market alternative to government welfare. :roll:
A lot of nonprofits do not even disclose their CEO's pay or how much money donated actually goes to their cause, and even when they do, people do not seem to care enough to research it before donating. Don't get me wrong, I believe in social entrepreneurs and if you can get rich helping others then more power to you. However, the goal in such an organization should be to squeeze as much as possible out of every penny to serve the cause and high overhead and administrative costs indicate a poor CEO who should not be taking home absurd sums of money. And yet, that is what happens. Plenty of people in the top 1% are executives of charities and that is a sad state of affairs for anyone who thinks their money is going to help others rather than pay for some CEO's yacht.
Does anyone know of a viable nonpartisan ranking system for charities?
A lot of nonprofits do not even disclose their CEO's pay or how much money donated actually goes to their cause, and even when they do, people do not seem to care enough to research it before donating. Don't get me wrong, I believe in social entrepreneurs and if you can get rich helping others then more power to you. However, the goal in such an organization should be to squeeze as much as possible out of every penny to serve the cause and high overhead and administrative costs indicate a poor CEO who should not be taking home absurd sums of money. And yet, that is what happens. Plenty of people in the top 1% are executives of charities and that is a sad state of affairs for anyone who thinks their money is going to help others rather than pay for some CEO's yacht.
Does anyone know of a viable nonpartisan ranking system for charities?