Ask Your Question today
Somehow I feel that, while charities are noble for exposing injustices and showing what needs to be done, they end up desensitizing us to it. For example, we see starving kids on TV every day and while we initially feel bad for them and want to give, we get used to it. Then we just accept it as if it is normal and okay.
Do you agree or not?
| Yes | 12 | |
| No | 8 |
Most charities are a scam anyways. The CEO of the "Save The Children" campaign earns over £250,000 a year. Oh but 100% of proceeds go to the communities that need help? Sure they do. You just keep telling yourself that.
I think you're being too cynical, Doctor.
The best charities have to be pragmatic. In an ideal world charities could attract the best managing executives without paying what a big corporation would have to pay, but that isn't the society we live in. If Save The Children paying their CEO over £250,000 a year makes their whole operation more effective - widening their scope and helping more people in the long run - then it would be unethical for them *not* to do it. Dismissing it as a scam just isn't fair. Sure it's not ideal, but that's pragmatism in a capitalist society.
Anyone who is interested in how charity can work better (and has 18 minutes to spare) should watch this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bfAzi6D5FpM
But if someone is earning over £250,000 a year, how can 100% of proceeds be going to those in need?
Well, they clearly they shouldn't be making that claim because it's patently not true :P That said, literally no charity could *ever* make that claim. There is no such thing as a charity that can give 100% of the money to people in need, because even if they try there will always be expenses and inefficiencies.
If you take that claim absolutely literally, most charities give 0% of donations directly to people in need. The donations are invested into paying aid workers, or medicine, or buying the equipment and tools needed in communities where they can't be afforded, or food and transport, etc. That isn't a bad thing, because those are the investments which allow the money to make the most impact. If one of those investments which allows the money to make the biggest impact is a top CEO, is that so wrong?
My point is that percentage of donations going directly to the front line is a really bad way to analyze the worth of a charity.
I usually roll my eyes whenever "charities" are being advertised. Whether it's starving kids, breast cancer, or Alzheimer's awareness, how much of the money is actually going toward the cause?
Forget it. I'd rather give a homeless guy a few bucks so he can enjoy a cold, crisp beer. Murica!