Americans give record $295 billion to charities in 2006

[govman6767]

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

[ALawPoker]

[ QUOTE ]
giving to religious cults shouldn't be included in this calculation.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why? It's still people voluntarily giving their money to causes they think are good.

You can argue that believing in religion is not reasonable. But the "point" of this information, as I take it, is just that Americans are giving away a lot of money. And I think that's a good thing, both morally and for what it implies about our economic condition.

But I guess any data that suggests America is doing something good should be taken down a notch. We don't want people believing Americans are generous or anything.

[bkholdem]

[ 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?

[govman6767]

[ 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.

[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.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
giving to religious cults shouldn't be included in this calculation.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't like the work MADD does, we should exclude that, too.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
giving to religious cults shouldn't be included in this calculation.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why? It's still people voluntarily giving their money to causes they think are good.

You can argue that believing in religion is not reasonable. But the "point" of this information, as I take it, is just that Americans are giving away a lot of money. And I think that's a good thing, both morally and for what it implies about our economic condition.

But I guess any data that suggests America is doing something good should be taken down a notch. We don't want people believing Americans are generous or anything.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, you could probably make a good argument that "big fancy churches" and "Fathers having marble baths (personal anecdote)" aren't exactly 'good causes.' A ot of religious giving benefits the giver. I don't think this disqualifies it, of course.

[ALawPoker]

[ QUOTE ]
Well, you could probably make a good argument that "big fancy churches" and "Fathers having marble baths (personal anecdote)" aren't exactly 'good causes.'

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure, I agree with this. But I still think in the eye of the giver, it is a good cause. He's giving to "church" and not really concerned with how effectively his money is actually used (the same can be said for most any choice of charity).

I agree that some causes seem like less reasonable choices than others. But I think you can still look at religious donations as a nice (if maybe misguided) decision.

[ QUOTE ]
A ot of religious giving benefits the giver. I don't think this disqualifies it, of course.

[/ QUOTE ]

You could also argue that all giving benefits the giver in some way if he chooses to give and that semantically there is no such thing as an act of kindness. I don't really see what's different about religion than anything else.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Well, you could probably make a good argument that "big fancy churches" and "Fathers having marble baths (personal anecdote)" aren't exactly 'good causes.'

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure, I agree with this. But I still think in the eye of the giver, it is a good cause. He's giving to "church" and not really concerned with how effectively his money is actually used (the same can be said for most any choice of charity).

I agree that some causes seem like less reasonable choices than others. But I think you can still look at religious donations as a nice (if maybe misguided) decision.

[ QUOTE ]
A ot of religious giving benefits the giver. I don't think this disqualifies it, of course.

[/ QUOTE ]

You could also argue that all giving benefits the giver in some way if he chooses to give and that semantically there is no such thing as an act of kindness. I don't really see what's different about religion than anything else.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, you COULD argue that, but I wouldn't, and I sure hope I don't have to. Its a pretty boring argument.

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.

[bills217]

[ 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.