Americans give record $295 billion to charities in 2006

[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not to mention the costs of employees for a charitable organization of any size. Of course there will be significant overhead costs.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
some might call it tuition.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm pretty sure no one would call that. At least not someone who was honest and familiar with how things work in the church.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm pretty familiar with how things work in a parish and a Catholic school. Sample size is pretty small, admittedly. Not sure what you want me to say. People donate a lot to their church to make their church better. This isn't "Yeah, giving always makes the giver feel better" type of stuff, this is giving directly for your own benefit. People like going to church in nice, fancy, EXPENSIVE churches. Monseignors and priests like living in nice places and driving nice cars.

I don't know what percentage of the money given to churches ever leaves the church. It might be most of it. Surely, there are many good reasons people give money to their church. I'm not claiming otherwise. But to pretend like people do not get real, concrete, palpable returns on their donations at church is very dishonest.

[bills217]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
some might call it tuition.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm pretty sure no one would call that. At least not someone who was honest and familiar with how things work in the church.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm pretty familiar with how things work in a parish and a Catholic school. Sample size is pretty small, admittedly. Not sure what you want me to say. People donate a lot to their church to make their church better. This isn't "Yeah, giving always makes the giver feel better" type of stuff, this is giving directly for your own benefit. People like going to church in nice, fancy, EXPENSIVE churches. Monseignors and priests like living in nice places and driving nice cars.

I don't know what percentage of the money given to churches ever leaves the church. It might be most of it. Surely, there are many good reasons people give money to their church. I'm not claiming otherwise. But to pretend like people do not get real, concrete, palpable returns on their donations at church is very dishonest.

[/ QUOTE ]

You missed my implication.

Tuition is not optional in order to receive the benefits of a college education.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
some might call it tuition.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm pretty sure no one would call that. At least not someone who was honest and familiar with how things work in the church.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm pretty familiar with how things work in a parish and a Catholic school. Sample size is pretty small, admittedly. Not sure what you want me to say. People donate a lot to their church to make their church better. This isn't "Yeah, giving always makes the giver feel better" type of stuff, this is giving directly for your own benefit. People like going to church in nice, fancy, EXPENSIVE churches. Monseignors and priests like living in nice places and driving nice cars.

I don't know what percentage of the money given to churches ever leaves the church. It might be most of it. Surely, there are many good reasons people give money to their church. I'm not claiming otherwise. But to pretend like people do not get real, concrete, palpable returns on their donations at church is very dishonest.

[/ QUOTE ]

You missed my implication.

Tuition is not optional in order to receive the benefits of a college education.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok. Its been my experience that 'donations' aren't really optional to receive the benefits of the fancy church, either. Maybe in theory, certainly not in practice. The Sister in charge of the school my girlfriend works at makes it abundantly clear to those who aren't charitable enough that they can find another church if they don't like giving to this one.

[bills217]

[ QUOTE ]
The Sister in charge of the school my girlfriend works at makes it abundantly clear to those who aren't charitable enough that they can find another church if they don't like giving to this one.

[/ QUOTE ]

Point taken. I don't know if that is true in general of Catholic churches, but it is definitely contrary to the experience I have had in the Protestant church. In fact, across several churches I have attended, it is usually made explicitly clear that visitors should give nothing, and it is nothing approaching a requirement, even of members. If it was, giving would be several times what it currently is.

[bills217]

[ QUOTE ]
The Sister in charge of the school my girlfriend works at

[/ QUOTE ]

You're dating someone who works at a Catholic school!??! Vhawk! You better not let this get out in SMP! She must be a real babe.

Next time you see her, you might ask her if she knows what 2 Corinthians 6:14 says.

[ALawPoker]

[ QUOTE ]
What I'm talking about is taking Mass in a huge, beautifully furnished church and having my kids get Sunday school with all kinds of great toys and resources. This all counts as charity, some might call it tuition.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ya, but I don't think most people have that stuff in mind when they give to the church. Regardless of how the money is actually spent, the motivation is all that matters to me. I guess it's hard to say it isn't in the back of their mind that they might be getting some use out of it. But if I give $1,000 to some community of many people, it's hard to believe that's the best thing to do with my money, if just satisfying myself was my intention. Having nice churches might be a nice side effect, but I think the money given is mostly a result of generosity and very little by way of perceived utility. It just isn't a sound way to spend your money, so I don't think the claim that this is self-interest holds much water (unless you think all giving is ultimately self-interest, which like you say, is a dull argument).

I wouldn't call it tuition, cause you could get almost just as much out of the experience without paying. Tuition is required.

[tehox]

[ QUOTE ]
Here is a book that came out last year about this.

[ QUOTE ]

30 of 59 people found the following review helpful:
Important read to understand what is really going on, December 5, 2006
By Gene Pope "gene" (Trout Creek, MT USA) - See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)
The numbers are pretty amazing. The average religious conservative gives 100 times as much as the non-religious liberal! I guess that shows who really wants to help.

[/ QUOTE ]

So I guess that those evil conservatives gave about $293 Billion while the party of love, caring, and inclusion ponied up about $2 Billion. Way to go conservatives. Leave it to people who don't believe in the effectiveness of government to put their money where their mouth is.

I wonder if all charitable giving were outlawed and given to the strict domain of government, how our society would fair. I understand that only $.25 of every $1 going to welfare actually reaches the people it is intended for. The rest of the money is spent on expensive cars and office buildings for government bureaucrats. I think that the charitable spending is prolly much more efficient in the private charities.

Coincidentally, I think this is a demonstration of AC prinicples where the private sector comes through where the government does not.

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL you quote one review of a book on Amazon.com as if it were the truth. The author of the book actually estimates that Republicans donate about 30% more than Democrats. There might be something there, I don't know too much about the quality of the research in the book. One thing to keep in mind is that they count religous contributions, so if there is a difference that Republicans are more likely to go to church (which from what I read, Republicans are more likely to attend church then Democrats), then they are more likely to donate to the church.

I think your points about efficiency of government have merit, though as has been pointed out here there are similar problems in nonprofit charitable orginizations.

[bkholdem]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Here is a book that came out last year about this.

[ QUOTE ]

30 of 59 people found the following review helpful:
Important read to understand what is really going on, December 5, 2006
By Gene Pope "gene" (Trout Creek, MT USA) - See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)
The numbers are pretty amazing. The average religious conservative gives 100 times as much as the non-religious liberal! I guess that shows who really wants to help.

[/ QUOTE ]

So I guess that those evil conservatives gave about $293 Billion while the party of love, caring, and inclusion ponied up about $2 Billion. Way to go conservatives. Leave it to people who don't believe in the effectiveness of government to put their money where their mouth is.

I wonder if all charitable giving were outlawed and given to the strict domain of government, how our society would fair. I understand that only $.25 of every $1 going to welfare actually reaches the people it is intended for. The rest of the money is spent on expensive cars and office buildings for government bureaucrats. I think that the charitable spending is prolly much more efficient in the private charities.

Coincidentally, I think this is a demonstration of AC prinicples where the private sector comes through where the government does not.

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL you quote one review of a book on Amazon.com as if it were the truth. The author of the book actually estimates that Republicans donate about 30% more than Democrats. There might be something there, I don't know too much about the quality of the research in the book. One thing to keep in mind is that they count religous contributions, so if there is a difference that Republicans are more likely to go to church (which from what I read, Republicans are more likely to attend church then Democrats), then they are more likely to donate to the church.

I think your points about efficiency of government have merit, though as has been pointed out here there are similar problems in nonprofit charitable orginizations.

[/ QUOTE ]

WRT repubs and church: It's not as if dems are restrained from giving to charity simply because they may go to church less.

WRT govt: With private charity giving is OPTIONAL. If you think it's a rip off or unfair or whatever you don't have to give. Also with private charity there is competition. With government they are the only game in town so they can be as inefficient as they want and you still have to pay. With private charity you can research the % of dontations the charity uses to fund operating expenses and only donate to ones that keep expenses low relative to their competition. Government sucks at charity and you have to donate.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The Sister in charge of the school my girlfriend works at

[/ QUOTE ]

You're dating someone who works at a Catholic school!??! Vhawk! You better not let this get out in SMP! She must be a real babe.

Next time you see her, you might ask her if she knows what 2 Corinthians 6:14 says.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll respond back with a "Point taken!" of my own. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

She's worth it, though.