Poll of the Day > It annoys the fuck out of me when I feel like my generosity is abused

(+) Yeah! (+)

I donate to charity and I'm happy to do so, but nothing makes me question my donations more than when one of the charities phones me up and tries to guilt me into giving more money by reading me out a sob-story over the phone.

I appreciate that you're doing good work in the world and getting people to open up their wallets is a chore at the best of times, but using emotional blackmail is an excellent way to make me start looking for someone else to donate to.
---

Give to the church, they never abuse your generosity
---

What I don't like is when I lend out money, and the person says they'll pay it back and doesn't. I actually don't mind giving out money if someone needs it, and I don't actually ask for it back. What annoys me is when that person explicitly says they'll give it back, and they don't. Money's one thing, but don't go back on your word.
---

Can't get guilted into being asked to donate more if you don't donate in the first place
---

It annoys the fuck out of me when I feel like my generosity is abused

Which is my gripe with most social entitlements. Society has an obligation to care for those who don't care for themselves, but the system is being widely abused to the detriment of individuals who choose to take a benefit instead of pursuing a career and, of course, to the taxpayers forced to support them. My brother's old apartment building was stacked with Section-8 recipients, many of whom were able-bodied non-workers (although there certainly *were* a few who worked... off-book, of course, to keep up their benefits)
---

Andromicus posted...

Give to the church, they never abuse your generosity

No just the children

darkknight109 posted...

I appreciate that you're doing good work in the world and getting people to open up their wallets is a chore at the best of times, but using emotional blackmail is an excellent way to make me start looking for someone else to donate to.

Isn't that what all charities do? Also the money you donate pays the workers and running of the business before the cause so eh. Why not directly donate to the cause?
---

From someone that did fundraising, it's a hard line to walk. Recurring donations are what charities rely on the most. But we never did cold calling for it. Just sent letters thanking people for their donations.
---

wwinterj25 posted...

darkknight109 posted...

I appreciate that you're doing good work in the world and getting people to open up their wallets is a chore at the best of times, but using emotional blackmail is an excellent way to make me start looking for someone else to donate to.

Isn't that what all charities do? Also the money you donate pays the workers and running of the business before the cause so eh. Why not directly donate to the cause?

Any charity with paid staff, your donations at least in part go to the costs of employing people. it sounds bad. But it's 100% necessary for charities to actually do things. Money does nothing without people putting it to proper use.
---

Doctor Foxx posted...

Any charity with paid staff, your donations at least in part go to the costs of employing people. it sounds bad. But it's 100% necessary for charities to actually do things. Money does nothing without people putting it to proper use.

Indeed. If possible cut out the middle man.
---

wwinterj25 posted...

Doctor Foxx posted...

Any charity with paid staff, your donations at least in part go to the costs of employing people. it sounds bad. But it's 100% necessary for charities to actually do things. Money does nothing without people putting it to proper use.

Indeed. If possible cut out the middle man.

You can't really short of donating to the charity directly with cash as opposed to doing something like donating to the United Way with a credit card

Your money is still going to someone's wages either way
---

Doctor Foxx posted...

You can't really short of donating to the charity directly with cash as opposed to doing something like donating to the United Way with a credit card

So there is a way. That's all that matters. Would a hospital reject a donation in any form though for example? Donating to a cancer ward rather than a cancer charity would be more beneficial.
---

Doctor Foxx posted...

wwinterj25 posted...

Doctor Foxx posted...

Any charity with paid staff, your donations at least in part go to the costs of employing people. it sounds bad. But it's 100% necessary for charities to actually do things. Money does nothing without people putting it to proper use.

Indeed. If possible cut out the middle man.

You can't really short of donating to the charity directly with cash as opposed to doing something like donating to the United Way with a credit card

Your money is still going to someone's wages either way

Yeah, it's not like you can just donate to a computer who then processes the money, and then deposits it into someone's account.
You need a human figuring out where the money should go, how to get it to them, and so on. And humans take money to operate with any sort of real efficiency.
---

Doctor Foxx posted...

Recurring donations are what charities rely on the most.

This is something that I think a lot of people don't quite realize. I remember a topic a few years back where somebody was wondering why Red Cross sent them an email saying their donated blood had been given to a firefighter, since they didn't think that was necessary, and the point was raised (by Clench, I believe) that donor retention is one of the biggest challenges they face, and that it's absolutely vital to put some effort into making people feel good enough about donating that they they want to do it again. It's also a lot easier to convince somebody who's already donated to donate more than to get somebody to give for the first time, which is why efforts go toward that.

Does it go too far sometimes? Yeah. This topic is an example of that. Personally, though, if I get some sort of message trying to tell me how great more donations would be, even though it's unnecessary and a little annoying, I just accept that it's something they really need to do.
---

shadowsword87 posted...

Yeah, it's not like you can just donate to a computer who then processes the money, and then deposits it into someone's account.
You need a human figuring out where the money should go, how to get it to them, and so on. And humans take money to operate with any sort of real efficiency.

If only banks existed.
---

wwinterj25 posted...

If only banks existed.

So the bank finds where money should go.
So... they're the charity then.
---

shadowsword87 posted...

So the bank finds where money should go.
So... they're the charity then.

Actually no as the bank employees get paid from the folk running the bank.
By your logic anyone paying by cheque is donating to charity.
---

wwinterj25 posted...

shadowsword87 posted...

Yeah, it's not like you can just donate to a computer who then processes the money, and then deposits it into someone's account.
You need a human figuring out where the money should go, how to get it to them, and so on. And humans take money to operate with any sort of real efficiency.

If only banks existed.

Banks do indeed exist. Now all you have to do is personally identify a person or group in need, identify a service that will reliably fill that need, and transfer your money to that person or group so they can access that service.

In practice, having a charity do all of that legwork is a whole lot more efficient than each individual donor doing it themselves, even if it creates overhead costs. That doesn't mean those costs can't be inflated to abusive levels, but the concept of charitable organizations is not inherently wrong.
---

shadowsword87 posted...

Doctor Foxx posted...

wwinterj25 posted...

Doctor Foxx posted...

Any charity with paid staff, your donations at least in part go to the costs of employing people. it sounds bad. But it's 100% necessary for charities to actually do things. Money does nothing without people putting it to proper use.

Indeed. If possible cut out the middle man.

You can't really short of donating to the charity directly with cash as opposed to doing something like donating to the United Way with a credit card

Your money is still going to someone's wages either way

Yeah, it's not like you can just donate to a computer who then processes the money, and then deposits it into someone's account.
You need a human figuring out where the money should go, how to get it to them, and so on. And humans take money to operate with any sort of real efficiency.

You really don't know how charities operate. It's ok I've got years of experience handling financials for one
---

adjl posted...

Banks do indeed exist. Now all you have to do is personally identify a person or group in need, identify a service that will reliably fill that need, and transfer your money to that person or group so they can access that service.

In practice, having a charity do all of that legwork is a whole lot more efficient than each individual donor doing it themselves, even if it creates overhead costs. That doesn't mean those costs can't be inflated to abusive levels, but the concept of charitable organizations is not inherently wrong.

I'll accept it's probably more convenient for some folk to just donate through a charity. Even more so if it's a regular thing they want to do.
---

Doctor Foxx posted...

You really don't know how charities operate. It's ok I've got years of experience handling financials for one

Yeah, that's the whole point.
Say you're just a shmuck who wants to help people out in Africa. You can't exactly take a month to fly over there, find a good spot to help the people there, make sure the money you're giving away won't become corrupt when you leave, and then make sure it actually gets done.
Or, you could hand $20 to someone who's literal job it is to make sure it goes to good use.
---

1st world problems itt

ask them not to call you and set up a monthly/yearly donation
---

Doctor Foxx posted...

wwinterj25 posted...

Doctor Foxx posted...

Any charity with paid staff, your donations at least in part go to the costs of employing people. it sounds bad. But it's 100% necessary for charities to actually do things. Money does nothing without people putting it to proper use.

Indeed. If possible cut out the middle man.

You can't really short of donating to the charity directly with cash as opposed to doing something like donating to the United Way with a credit card

Your money is still going to someone's wages either way

I paid the mercs at protrack directly, as well as donating gear to them directly.

It is doable, but requires more money to begin with.
---

I only make 10.68 an hour. So every charity can fuck off. Hell, we even had this one thing at work called United way. And I mean like...come on man.. most of us don't give a shit when we have to survive ourselves out here and all.