where your charitable contributions are going?

[SixFive]

Wow, click on this link http://ag.ky.gov/cp/active.htm to see a list of all active charities in Kentucky. A lot of these are national charities so they will apply to everybody. Sickening how many of these professional solicitors keep the vast majority and only a small percentage goes to the charity.

 

[dr. freeze]

wow some of these charities operate about as functionally as the government

particularly the African Wildlife Fund

whats also funny is how up in arms some of the hollywood people go when O'Reilly took them to task on this very issue

charities need to be held accountable and only an informed donator can do so

 

[dr. freeze]

edit.

 

[yyz]

The Human Fund.......Money for people.


:lol:

 

[maverick2112]

Makes you really want to hang up on them when they call........

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

Put bad taste in my mouth years ago when head of United way was on top paid exectutive list.Don't give shit to commercial charities anymore--I want to know where the cheese is going.
My favorites herein KY--

Firefighters take donations for kids at Christmas and 100% goes to kids. They invite you to go to store (has been walmart or target) and view the process.

Trooper Island.
State Police have Island where they take kids to camp for week 100% goes to process.

and try once a year to buy dog and cat found and take it (not money) to humane society.

 

[snoozer]

Most of these charities have it where you can donate directly to them, but like you mention some of that money goes and pays for overhead (IE United Way CEO).

This is why I like to donate my money to the church, you know 100% is going to the kids.... well at least the remaining money after they pay thier lawyers

 

[Nick Douglas]

Remember that charities wouldn't pay these solicitors if they didn't increase the money given to the charity. To me this is similar to the same old anti-lawyer rhetoric you see out there. It's a fact of life that you need good marketing to get your cause noticed. That's the service these solicitors provide.

It is also very misleading to give percentage based statistics when the solicitors charge a flat fee, not a percentage.

Here's what I don't like about this post. I am relative sure that DTB and SixFive (both of whom I think are stand up guys) are generally in favor of free enterprise and opposed to governmental restrictions on business. So here we have a case where there is a legitimate market-based need for charities to publicize their cause via the use of solicitors, yet they at least in some way endorse misleading statistics like these. I believe it is probably because they dislike organizations that they perceive to be, "leeches," on society like lawyers, agents, solicitors and the like, not because they have done a fair analysis of the needs of charitible organizations and the benefits they provide to folks who could use some help.

As far as the United Way item, ask yourself this question: Would the United Way be better off paying some incompetent boob a fraction of what they pay their CEO and watch their revenues sink like a stone? Of course not. The fact is it costs a damn lot of money to attract competent leadership for large organizations and the United Way is better off financially as a whole having a high paid executive in charge.

 

[SixFive]

I have always thought the United Way a waste going way back. Too much overhead and too much money wasted.


ND said "So here we have a case where there is a legitimate market-based need for charities to publicize their cause via the use of solicitors, yet they at least in some way endorse misleading statistics like these. I believe it is probably because they dislike organizations that they perceive to be, "leeches," on society like lawyers, agents, solicitors and the like, not because they have done a fair analysis of the needs of charitible organizations and the benefits they provide to folks who could use some help."

That's not it at all; let's think common sense. I think soliciting money to help what seem to be great charities and preying on the good nature of people is abhorrent when only 1% of those contributions goes to the actual charity. I have a huge problem with that.

Research where your contributions are going and be confident that the money goes to the charity and not in a shyster's pocket. I see myself as a very giving person, and I know where every dime of my charitable gifts goes. Do you, or do you even give to charities? THanks.

 

[yyz]

I believe the point of the post was just to inform people that their donation doesn't go where they intended it to go.

If the average person writes a check for $50 to some cause, I think they believe a very large portion of that money goes to the charity. (As it should, by the way) If they found out that up to $45.50 went in someone elses pocket, it would probably make them sick.

Several years ago, when I first found this out, I stopped giving to charities.

I understand that they to to be maintained, and organized, to run. But I, like many others, feel some of these funds are abused to a sickening degree.

 

[Nick Douglas]

I have no idea where my donated money goes. I believe in the goodness of all people, so I find it unnecessary to personally follow up on every contribution I make.

You guys have to move into reality. The fact is that marketing is a large factor in driving revenue, for charities or anything else. Solicitors are professional marketers for charities. They agree to a fee schedule with a charity because the charity knows that they will end up with more revenue than if they tried to do the marketing on their own.

No charity would agree to pay 99% of its contributions from a pledge drive to a solicitor. The problem is that sometimes things don't work out, and when you do the math afterwards to figure out what percentage the charity actually received, the revenues were so low that the charity only took in a small percentage of that money.

I really have to take issue with the term, "schysters." It reveals that I was spot on in my assesment of why you made this post in the first place. You could pretty much equate the term to, "leeches on society."

What is so, "schystey," about these solicitors? They work hard to try to get money for charitible causes. This is their job. It would be nice if we lived in Fantasyland and charities could be supported by part time volunteers, but the fact is that it takes full time marketing to elicit the kind of donations it takes to support those who are helped by charities.

I agree in a sense that there are many questionable charities out there. Some people see it as a way to employ themselves in a cushy job under the guise of helping the needy. That's the exception, not the rule.

As far as giving or not giving to charity, I don't see the harm in giving even if much of the money goes towards administration and marketing rather than the actual person you're trying to help. Your donation is keeping a charity worker employed so you're helping the economy. The real crime is hoarding all of you money away so that you can afford to play another game of golf.

 

[dr. freeze]

you believe in the goodness of people?

not sure to laugh, cry, or just shake my head at that comment

 

[Nick Douglas]

Even you, Freisz.

 

[taoist]

I have no idea where my donated money goes. I believe in the goodness of all people, so I find it unnecessary to personally follow up on every contribution I make.

Well, there's mistake numero uno!!! :scared

You guys have to move into reality. As far as giving or not giving to charity, I don't see the harm in giving even if much of the money goes towards administration and marketing rather than the actual person you're trying to help. Your donation is keeping a charity worker employed so you're helping the economy. The real crime is hoarding all of you money away so that you can afford to play another game of golf.

...and you followed that first quote with this rubbish!?!?!!? Who's the one that needs to "move into reality," Nick? :mj07:

Sorry, but I have to side with 6/5 and DTB on this issue. I hang up on all telemarketers, as they shouldn't be calling me anyway since I am on the Do Not Call list.... Also, any charitable contributions that I make, I definitely want to know where the $$ is going. Unfortunately, I'm not as idealistic as ole Nick and while I'd love to "believe in the goodness of all people," let's face it with crap like Enron and all the other scandals going on, it is just not feasible. I only donate to local charities because I know exactly where my contributions are going. I'm not trying to employ people...I'm trying to help out those less fortunate. If I were trying to provide jobs or stimulate the economy, I'd buy a big screen tv or something.... Anyway, that my 2 cents.

 

[UGA12]

CITIZENS AGAINST GOVERNMENT WASTE (1/99)


Hello Pot :chairshot :chairshot :chairshot

 

[SixFive]

From Websters:

shyster

n : a person who uses unscrupulous or unethical methods

Who is talking about leeches on society??? Not me for sure! You are spot on about nothing.

What you are saying is so what if only 1 dollar out of a 100 goes to the charity itself. I just can't see how that can be justified. Wake up!

ND said, "No charity would agree to pay 99% of its contributions from a pledge drive to a solicitor. The problem is that sometimes things don't work out, and when you do the math afterwards to figure out what percentage the charity actually received, the revenues were so low that the charity only took in a small percentage of that money."

What a frikkin' rationalization. GIve me a break. Here's the math; these people are RIPPING OFF THOSE WHO ARE DONATING!!!!!!

 

[yyz]

Nick, I will say this once more.

I don't care how much it costs to "run" the charity, and neither do the people who write the checks.

Is it naive to think 100% of your money goes to the people it is being solicited for? Sure!

Is it reasonable to think that a very high percentage of it goes to those people? I would have to say, yes.

Charities are not perceived as a "business", no matter how much you think they should be, and they certainly aren't, "free enterprise".

For anyone to think a 99% "fee" is A-OK, quite frankly......they need to get outta fantasyland.


The next time I want to golf, I will spend $100 on the round, and give two dollars to a homeless person under the overpass. That way, I will get some entertainment value for my hundy, and the homeless guy will get twice as much as he would have gotten if I went through the charity. A pure win/win situation for everyone! I can slake my needs for personal growth as a Republican, and be a good Democrat, by helping the less fortunate, while "sticking it to the man"!

Of course, the head of the charity will have to have one less after dinner drink at the country club he belongs to this week.

 

[Nick Douglas]

Where did the word schyster originally come from, SixFive? Answer that, read back my original post and you'll see that I was, in fact, spot on.

Again, some of you guys need to step into reality. You guys are like Kenny, the network executive on THE LARRY SANDERS SHOW who told the show's producer, Artie, "We noticed that a few of Larry's jokes last night didn't get a good response. Let's try to just tell the funny ones tonight." Artie responded, "How do you know which ones are funny until you tell them?"

That principle applies to the charities, solicitors and contributors in this case. Everyone wants all of their money to go to needy people. But how do you know whether a pledge drive will be a success or not until you do it?

As it relates to my comments about believing in the good of all people, that one is accepted by those who understand life and dismissed by those who don't. There are a few basic fundamental aspects of human nature. One is that no person can take any action that they believe at the time can lead anywhere else but towards putting their life into balance (i.e., happiness). That is what I meant when I made that statement.

 

[SixFive]

ND, I thought you were saying that I thought recipients of charity were the leeches. You are saying that I think "solicitors" are leeches to society. In this case I do, but I certainly don't think that about every solicitor.

I still don't see how you can justify the numbers. These are not all finite pledge drives we are talking about here. Review the webpage again.

I know where my money goes, and I think it's unwise to be an uninformed donor. I have no problem saying no to those collecting for charities. My standard reply is a polite, "No thanks, I already donate a set amount of my income to other causes."

 

[dr. freeze]

"no person can take any action that they believe at the time can lead anywhere else but towards putting their life into balance (i.e., happiness). QUOTE]

how about the guy who commits suicide?

how about the schizophrenic?

how about the guy who is grieving?

how about the murderer?

how about someone with dementia?

how about the guy with delusions?

how about the alcoholic with an addiction trying to recover who takes that first drink?

how about the guy who steals from his neighbor?