In debt but still give to charity?

determined_new_ms

I think it depends on what your financial situation is. If you are in crisis and have more money going out than coming in then you have no money to donate. However I allow my self a certain amount of spending money each month and I donate to causes using that. I also agree I like to give directly where I can

Fireflyaway

I stopped giving to big charities as I became skeptical about how much money was actually reaching the cause it was meant for. I currently work for a charity and see the wastage first hand. I'd rather give direct to someone who know will use the money or goods wisely. A few pounds won't clear my debt much quicker but giving to a good cause its a way to feel productive.

Helvetica_Van_Buren

No, I think the whole charity scene at the minute is rotten to the core.
- Idiots jumping out at you in the street with clipboards
- The selling of personal information by charities to others
- The silly things charities waste their money one
- The refusal by charities to take 'no' for an answer
- Paying charity collectors a cut of what they earn
- Charity CEOs on £150,000


Not to mention the fact that there shouldn't even BE a need for charity at all.

Look after yourself first - especially when you're debt. Don't be emotionally blackmailed into donating.

Do something a little a bit closer to home - help out somebody on your street, a pensioner or a family in need. Get a bag of shopping for someone that needs it. Volunteer somewhere. Spend some time at your local animal shlter. There's loads you can do without having to set up a direct debit to a humongous big-name money hoover.

theoretica

I find it really sad that the bad apples among charities and the way this has been publicised has led to some people having the perception that no charities, or no big charities, are efficient users of their resources. All charities need to publish their accounts, so I check that I approve of them before donating as well as wanting to support the cause.

Helvetica_Van_Buren

theoretica wrote: »

I find it really sad that the bad apples among charities and the way this has been publicised has led to some people having the perception that no charities, or no big charities, are efficient users of their resources.

They aren't. Paying companies up to 60% of what they collect in earnings isn't a good use of charity money.

There's a long list of things wrong with charities - some of which I've touched upon in my previous post so I'm not going to go through it again. And it's bad when the 'bad apples' are some of the biggest names in charity.

theoretica wrote: »

All charities need to publish their accounts, so I check that I approve of them before donating as well as wanting to support the cause.

I think you're lying. I don't believe you do this.

It looked like you were defending charities, but then went on to say you check the published accounts of charities - which would imply you at have some degree of skepticism - so I'm not sure what your point is.

Quite simply, whether you like it or not, charity is big business - the CEO will take his salary of £150,000 before anything goes to good causes. I'm sorry if you didn't know this, and I'm sorry more if you think this is OK and continue to be part of it.

iolanthe07

I was shocked when I learned about the huge salaries (in some cases more than that of the Prime Minister) paid to some large charity CEO's. I now only give to small local charities run by volunteers and Battersea Dogs' Home.

theoretica

Helvetica_Van_Buren wrote: »

I think you're lying. I don't believe you do this.

It looked like you were defending charities, but then went on to say you check the published accounts of charities - which would imply you at have some degree of skepticism - so I'm not sure what your point is.

That is extremely rude of you - and false.

Yes I have a degree of scepticism, and want to know my money will be spent in ways I am happy with, so I check. There is a healthy difference between wanting information and assuming without looking at easily available data. That goes both ways - I think it foolish to assume the charity is either a good one, or a poor one. I don't spend ages checking as I mainly give to a few charities. I am not defending all charities, but nor am I criticizing them all as you do. I realise that they are many different organisations.

theoretica

iolanthe07 wrote: »

I was shocked when I learned about the huge salaries (in some cases more than that of the Prime Minister) paid to some large charity CEO's. I now only give to small local charities run by volunteers and Battersea Dogs' Home.

If you are interested, the Battersea Dog's Home wouldn't pass my scrutiny for financial donations. In 2015 they spent £11.5 million on getting donations and legacies which raised £31 million (p17). I wouldn't want over 1/3 of my donation to be spent on fundraising.
Also as you mention high salaries as of concern to you, the highest paid member of staff was getting £130-140k (p 27).

http://apps.charitycommission.gov.uk/Accounts/Ends94/0000206394_AC_20151231_E_C.PDF

barbarawright

I don't object to senior charity workers getting good wages. These are huge organisations that need to attract the best staff - do you really think Oxfam can be run entirely by volunteers?

If anyone does want to check out their favourite charity, they can do so here http://apps.charitycommission.gov.uk/Showcharity/RegisterOfCharities/registerhomepage.aspx

FatVonD

I cancelled my direct debits to two charities at the same time I joined here and started trying to cut down what I paid for insurances etc. I have recently bought breakfast for a couple sleeping rough on my route to work though.