Post: #1

I've been reading RVF a lot recently, and it's definitely put certain things (money mainly) in perspective. I look at my finances right now, they're not amazing, but it's coming along reasonably well. However I do have one question and I'd love your guys' opinions on it.

A long time ago I read 'The Life You Can Save' by Peter Singer and 'The End of Poverty' by Jeff Sachs. They were interesting reads and I did believe that they made a valid argument for donating 5% of your income to charities that support extremely poverished people make a living on their own. (Their essential argument is that certain people are so poor they can't get out of it by themselves, yet a small amount such as $100 can go a long way in making them self-sufficient).

Anyway, I've been donating 5% of my income to a charity fighting malaria in Africa. Now I'm wondering, should I be? I haven't traveled extensively, so I don't know if my contributions achieve anything positive. Especially the guys that have seen extreme poverty in travel, do you guys feel people should/could donate a bit of their money?

I've just been thinking a lot of the entire 'the strong should help the weak in society' argument I've heard my entire life and whether it's a valid one etc. I might be over-thinking this, but I don't want women in the workplace to get any help because they're weak and so how far should I extend that philosophy?

Post: #2

I frequently donate semen to poor girls in 3rd world countries. It's expensive, time consuming, and requires a lot of work, but it's worth it and leaves me with an amazing feeling of accomplishment.

Post: #3

(03-31-2013 05:23 PM)Aliblahba Wrote:  I frequently donate semen to poor girls in 3rd world countries. It's expensive, time consuming, and requires a lot of work, but it's worth it and leaves me with an amazing feeling of accomplishment.

Now in all seriousness. I donate about $10 monthly to St Judes. I haven't been able to do it in a few months but Imma start doing it again.

Post: #4

Make sure you do some research on the various charities. You might find there is a lot of donated money "lost" to administrative costs. That fries my ass: "We are here to help (after we take a huge cut for our leather couches, MacBooks, big galas and bigger salaries)."

You might find a charity that helps local people (homeless, hungry, etc.). It is great to send money to other places, but there are people where you live that are having a tough time. I have donated money to churches and charities that help locally, and I have found that donating my two hands and time is even more rewarding.

Post: #5

I agree with Greensteelhead Most charities have horrible efficiency. It is because they are businesses not charities, a church is a charity, a nonprofit like Susan Komen cure for breast cancer is a business, which wastes millions of dollars every year throwing really cool events that are fun to do and lots of hot chicks show up. But its quite useless, who needs "breast cancer awareness?" At least put some money into finding a damn cure for gods sake. But its not bad because businesses provide jobs and often times a good product such as Susan Komen promoting marathons and other races.

If you truly want to make a difference, volunteer your personal time coaching kids or be a big brother, or do a crowdfunding such as:

Kickstarter
neighbor.ly

Personally i think microlending is much better than just giving money away and has been proven very efficient. Giving someone a handout is generous, giving someone an opportunity is life changing! If you put money into Kiva.org or another microlending website, when it is paid back you can put that money + whatever money your putting in every month to giving another or 10 other people an opportunity. Then your donations will multiply into perpetuity.

Post: #6

If you genuinely feel from the depths of your heart that you want to give to a charity and do it because you truly want to help people in need, then by all means give whatever you want.

If you are giving to charity because someone else convinced you it was a good idea, but you have second thoughts about it, then that's not a very good reason to give money

Post: #7

I give ~$100 a month split between 3 charities - world vision, world society for the protection of animals (WSPA) and MSF (Doctors without Borders)

Post: #8

I donate to this charity that trains monkeys to help disabled people live independently. They sent me a few of their shirts that I've been wearing to the gym and I always get opened based on the helper monkey shirt by some pretty cute girls.

Philanthropy = attention whoring to make yourself feel good.

Post: #9

IMO donating to charities is just stupid.

Charities redistribute the donated money (after taking part of the money as "administrative costs" or however it is called) to a wide range of people therefore the sum of money donated to any single person is low. They will never give enough to a person for him to crawl out of poverty, they will merely give him enough to make him dependent on charity and to keep their busyness going. In fact charities help to maintain poverty by neither pulling people out of poverty and neither starving them off.

If you really want to help someone then first become rich yourself and then search for a poor man who has enough willpower to change his life and would not waste your donation to drugs or alcohol, know him in person, make sure he is trustworthy and don't give him some shitty 10$, give him 10000$ or whatever is enough for him to crawl out of the pit he is into and start living a life with perspective. Don't give people shit like food for their next meal, give them enough for them to start having their own address and roof over their head so that they could apply for a job, give them enough for education, give them enough for a suit to wear to a job interview. Stick your 10$ for food in your ass.

Then you will have truly been have helped someone. But to do that you first must be rich enough to afford to actually help someone else.

Post: #10

I donate blood to the red cross, and I will donate sweat to a good local cause. There's plenty of chances to socialize and network at crab feeds and 5k's. As long as you aren't a complete idiot people will invite you back.

Post: #11

Charity Gigs. Give to a cause and swoop fly rich girls at the same time. Kill two birds with one stone.

Post: #12

I agree with Mage about charity for poverty

Giving people enough money for the next meal is just stupid.

It seams like the weak are the one getting the most children.
Might sound pretty cold, but giving them food is just like feeding the street dogs, might feel good there and then. But next year there are two dogs who comes begging for food instead of one.

I wonder what shithole africa would have been without aids and malaria.
All the problem they are currently faceing on top of overpopulation.

Unless you have power making a long term change, don't bother. I think this is the same strategy Bill Gates made.

I would give to a cherity that benefits the nature.

Post: #13

I've spent a lot of years donating and volunteering in veterans clubs. No one else gives a shit, so we take care of our own.

Post: #14

Also one thing I would consider a good Charity would be signing up to become a "brother". Helping out a troubled kid/teenager would be a place where you actually could make a contribution, and you might learn a lot from it at the same time.

Post: #15

+1 for donating time. I used to do this before my current job made it impossible, and is much better I think. You can actually help the end user instead of essentially giving someone else generous pay to do it. I've looked into a lot of charities and amazed how little of my money actually gets to the end user. Classic example that comes to mind is kiva micro-loans. I thought it was an amazing idea (help people help themselves) but turns out all you're doing is guaranteeing loans in the third world which still have interest and administrative costs approaching 100%. The end user has only marginally more access to loans or marginally better rates than they did before. Better than nothing I suppose, but the huge winners here are the third world banks who if the loan defaults, we pay it, if it doesn't they collect 50% interest from the borrower.

I've had friends who have basically done as much, set up a charity as a legal entity, raise money using some cause, donate a bit to the actual charity, use the rest for salaries and events. It's legal as long as the costs and salaries aren't unreasonable, but completely against the spirit charity in my opinion.

Post: #16

(03-31-2013 07:25 PM)greensteelhead Wrote:  Make sure you do some research on the various charities. You might find there is a lot of donated money "lost" to administrative costs. That fries my ass: "We are here to help (after we take a huge cut for our leather couches, MacBooks, big galas and bigger salaries)."

You might find a charity that helps local people (homeless, hungry, etc.). It is great to send money to other places, but there are people where you live that are having a tough time. I have donated money to churches and charities that help locally, and I have found that donating my two hands and time is even more rewarding.

+1
Volunteer locally, and research the charity

Habitat for humanity is a good one to get involved with, but there are so many out there

Post: #17

I donate 35% of my income from every paycheck. It's called taxes. My donation goes toward providing food, money (in the form of EBT), and subsidized housing to poor people and even healthcare for the sick, poor and elderly.

When the government stops taking so much and gives me a choice as to how I can spend the money I "donate," then I'll consider giving more.

Until then, it's survival of the fittest.

Post: #18

Definitely a good idea

i give monthly to docs without borders. i should be adding more charities shortly.

Post: #19

I give to a Catholic orphanage in India that was founded a few years ago and is run by a friend of a friend. Very little "administrative overhead," so whatever I donate actually does some good, instead of paying for some nonprofit's CEO to fill up his private jet.

Post: #20

(04-06-2013 12:25 PM)Smitty Wrote:  I donate 35% of my income from every paycheck. It's called taxes. My donation goes toward providing food, money (in the form of EBT), and subsidized housing to poor people and even healthcare for the sick, poor and elderly.

When the government stops taking so much and gives me a choice as to how I can spend the money I "donate," then I'll consider giving more.

Until then, it's survival of the fittest.

And then the other half of that "donation" is used to prop up worthless banks who rake in billions in gubmint guaranteed loan interest by pushing the poor to live beyond their means.

They can't steal your value when you don't play into the money game.

Post: #21

I donate directly to people or families I know personally.

I respect people donating blood to Red Cross, or time for veterans and seniors, but in general, "middle man" charities are for chumps.

Post: #22

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gqncCjxGqGw
or be anonymous or don't ...the mighty larry david

Post: #23

(04-06-2013 12:25 PM)Smitty Wrote:  I donate 35% of my income from every paycheck. It's called taxes. My donation goes toward providing food, money (in the form of EBT), and subsidized housing to poor people and even healthcare for the sick, poor and elderly.

When the government stops taking so much and gives me a choice as to how I can spend the money I "donate," then I'll consider giving more.

Until then, it's survival of the fittest.

This, pretty much. My social security and medicare/medicaid donations are doing wonders supporting those without savings and those 94 year old grandmas that need $30k joint replacements.

But seriously, maybe once a year I'll log on to Charity Navigator and find the top 3 most efficient charities and give them some cash regardless of its cause.

A tangent ramble: I think it was NPR that had a brief segment recently about a 'what if' Americans were able to check a couple boxes on their tax return to decide where just 5% of their paid taxes were to be allocated. Now we all know DC scum would never let that happen, and that it's relatively moot since we spend more than we take in, but it was a really interesting thought experiment.