[bkholdem]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yeah but your forgetting the big picture here according to law only 10 % of collected monies have to go to set charity.

I know when we were collecting money for the Red Cross at the Supermarket we only had to give them 10 %.

So guess what with the exception of 2.9 billion all t he rest goes to the collectee's

[/ QUOTE ]

While your point that 'administrative costs' are not free is a good one, do you think the average administrative cost is higher for government or for private charity?

In other words, is it more efficient to donate extra money over and above your tax bill to the government so they can distribute it to their 'charitable causes' or will the money be more effective if given to private charity?

[/ QUOTE ]

It should be given right to the charity.

It's messed up I can stand in front of a supermarket (With their permission) and collect 10000 dollars for some cancer patient and then I get to keep 9 grand for standing in front of the supermarket. That's not administrative costs it's theft.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree 100%. I had no idea that supermarkets did this (took out a portion to keep for themselves, I thought they forwarded it ALL to the red cross... who then takes out their % to cover administrative costs).

I remember seeing a show on charities in the past, that is when I first learned that some places really leech a massive portion for their 'administrative costs'...

For example

Save Starving Abandoned Babies

President: family father salary 150,000
vp: his wife, salary 140,000
their office: 1million dollar home they live in
Their kids are the treasurer, public relations officer, etc ....

% to charity 20, percent to their 'costs' 80

It's my understanding that you can look up charities to see the % they use to fund operating expenses and the % that goes directly to the kids or whoever. After all you can't expect the people spending 40hrs a week running these places to be doing it for free unless they are independently wealthy themselves.