Charity....As you open your pockets for yet another natural disaster

[mom'sfolly]

Actually, for most of the charities listed, the administrative costs are NOT a high percentage of the money donated. If you don't like how a charity spends its money, don't donate to them. Personally, I think most charities would be hard pressed to do something like disaster relief in the Third World.

Who decides what is a reasonable salary for a CEO? Is coordinating disaster relief on 6 continents worth less than running a local software company? Worth more or less than a senator is paid?

 

[MysticScorpio82]

mom'sfolly :

Actually, for most of the charities listed, the administrative costs are NOT a high percentage of the money donated. If you don't like how a charity spends its money, don't donate to them. Personally, I think most charities would be hard pressed to do something like disaster relief in the Third World.

Who decides what is a reasonable salary for a CEO? Is coordinating disaster relief on 6 continents worth less than running a local software company? Worth more or less than a senator is paid?

And that is why I choose to donate to local organizations or help people myself. I do not like how most national charities allot their cash, and a few other reasons previously stated. And yet there seem to be those that think we are being greedy or shallow for not donating to them...

Ok I will be bowing out of this thread now, I feel have expressed my reasonings the best I can, and there is nothing more I can say to the wall.

(j/k) Both sides are set in their ways and beliefs on the matter, so continuing this just seems to be ruffling more feathers than having an actual conversation. I like discussions, not arguments

God Bless​

 

[HHandbasket]

Ok, so I was wrong. Let's just give these over-inflated CEOs and their private jets and their spoiled rotten, obnoxious little rich kids all our money while the people who are requesting help from the charities are constantly being told there aren't any funds for their programs anymore.

That's my whole point... give your money to charities where you KNOW the money is going to be at least appreciated and well-spent.

No one said it's easy or that the work they do isn't worthwhile. I just have a serious problem struggling to tithe my income when the receivers of said income abuse it. I'm not donating money for some jerkwad to send his kids to a private school and get him and his wife matching jet skis for their caribbean vacation this year. I'm donating money to help people that are needy, not greedy, so I'll keep my donations to local charities where I know the people running them, like our local food bank, local homeless shelters, and local animal shelters.

 

[Mattemma]

It is too bad that companies will not cap the incomes for them.Why the need for such a high income? Does the work they do require such a high pay to make up for an expensive college education? I will give to my local womens/children shelter.Hopefully most of it goes directly to those in need.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Quote:
Quote:
I also mentioned $32,000 in a much earlier post. It is a long thread and easy to miss. And if you read through this thread and see what percentage they are taking, often the percentage is not really that much. A good CEO will bring in much more in donations than their salary and keep the organization functioning. A bad CEO will destroy the organization. What is that saying, "You have to spend money to make money".

Since I retired, I don't give to the big charities. I donate time to local charities, but I am doing nothing to really help others in case of a natural disaster. If you give locally according to your ability, I think that is great. If you give on a national scale, I think that is great.

Whether local or national, you should investigate what is actually happening and be guided by that. There are scams and crooks out there. Because of their lies and basic dishonesty, the one I really dislike is one that called and said they were asking for donations for the police fund. They keep 90% of the money for themselves. They use what I consider dishonest tactics in trying to get a donation. I'm not saying they are all crooks, but I don't give time, money, or goods until I check them out.

 

[welsummerchicks]

"their spoiled rotten, obnoxious little rich kids"

This shows a kind of emotional judgementalism that tends to fan the cheery flames of such discussions.

Until you are closely acquainted with the families and children of the majority of these people, I think it's better not to generalize like this.

Maybe part of the difficulty of those jobs is being subjected to such summary judgement, without the speaker having any idea what their kids are like.

That said, I doubt the 'goodness' of kids, or their 'obnoxiousness', follows along salary based lines. I see ill-mannered, spoiled, obnoxious kids at all economic levels....same for 'no-obnoxious' kids. A sense of 'entitlement' and rude behavior in kids cuts across a lot of lines.

 

[PineappleMama]

I understand you can't just walk in off the streets and get a CEO position, TOTALLY!!

I wouldn't WANT that job, I do totally get it.

But as a business major, or whatever, they had a choice in where to apply and which position to take. They majored in what they did because they wanted a high paying job. They wanted to live a nice fat existence... and they are, at the charity's expense. A big company, clearly out for themselves as that's their job, wants to pay someone that much that's one thing. If the stockholders are okay with it, consider it worth the price, so be it.

But a charity is a different animal. Those that make donations are the stockholders so to speak... except that unlike a business THEY don't seek ANY benefits from their 'investment' instead they want to see those benefits go to specific people... sick, homeless, no food, which every group they help... so diverting their invested funds away from those who should be getting it to pay for an overbloated salary is a different thing from when a business does it.

Everyone knows the business and it's CEOs and it's stockholders are all out for #1, themselves.

That is NOT the way a charity is supposed to be run, bypasses the WHOLE POINT. If the head honcho of a charity has the #1 attitude then WHO is it that's actually looking out for the people they're supposedly dedicated to helping? The volunteers at the local level do, they SEE what their work is doing, they see what that money does... does a CEO in a office have any clue? Does he/she know what could be bought... how many lives could be saved... if they weren't so obsessed with money they demanded that huge a check?

Who knows... but I can say this. IF I had the degree, the experience, etc. and I truly wanted to help OTHERS I would volunteer OR take as little as possible... enough to live... maybe even live middle class... but I would NOT have the sickening nerve to claim to want to save lives and then take food right out of the hungrys mouths... if I wanted to be THAT person I'd sign up with Monsanto or one of the other corporations that are having a field day draining our country dry.

Guess it's an attitude thing... help if you want to help... stay the heck out of the way if you don't.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Quote:
I hope so too. I know a lot of local help organizations do a lot of good work with very little. My wife is on the board of an organization sponsored by six area churches working together that do a lot of good. Nobody gets a salary or makes money off that operation. Even the treasurer is an unpaid volunteer. Some things cannot be done totally by volunteers though and there are a lot of things that need to be done. I think you need to look at what the organization is doing and how much your donation can help. Statistics are a good thing to look at but, depending on how they are presented, they can be misleading.

I don't know how that shelter is organized. Maybe nobody is drawing a salary from it. But lets assume that somebody is managing it for $20,000 a year. I'm picking this number because I think most of us can agree that is a pretty low number. Using the percents below from another post, (I'm assuming their math is correct.)

.01% gives an annual expense of $200,000,000
.08% gives an annual expense of $ 25,000,000
.05% gives an annual expense of $ 40,000,000

If you are only looking at what percentage of expenses go to the CEO, the Red Cross is a great deal. If your only criteria is the size of that salary, then the Red Cross is a lousy deal. If someone is running a local charity, gets an annual salary of $20,000, and has a total expense of less than $1,000,000, then by percent it is a lousy deal. It may still be doing something that is well worth supporting. I think you should look at the big picture and not get hung up on one statistic.

To me, looking at what percent of the money goes to the CEO may not be a really relevent statistic. If it is 90%, yeah, it is a real relevent statistic, but in a lot of cases it is not. I think you need to look at the overall picture of what they are doing. In the case of the group my wife is working with it would be almost impossible to come up with a true budget anyway. Part of what they do is accept donations of food, clothing, furniture, and such and get it to people that need it. Any monetary value you come up with for that is just going to be a pretty wild estimate, expecially for the furniture and clothing.

I think the salaries of some of these CEO's is a whole lot of money. I think what a lot of professional athletes get is a whole lot of money. I think what a lot of college football and basketball coaches get is a whole lot of money. I think what a lot of celebrities get is a whole lot of money. Somebody obviously thinks they are worth it, but I think the CEO's of the big charities should have a clearer conscience than the others I mentioned. They are actually providing a worthwhile service while the others are just entertaining some people. But that is just my opinion.


The salary of the CEO of the Red Cross constitutes only 1/100th of 1% -- yes 1% of 1% (or 0.01%) of the organization's annual expenses.
The United States fund for Unicef CEO - 0.08%
St Jude's former CEO 0.08% (current interim CEO 0.05%)

 

[arabianequine]

Quote:
I don't recall anyone saying this in the thread either............."The thinking that just because a CEO runs a non profit they should work for free."

It does not matter if only 1% its the point of it and seems wrong. It is still a lot of money and they ask for more and need it year round.

 

[PineappleMama]

Quote:
That IS a good point Ridge. Sure they ARE profiting, but they're doing so at a place that helps folks, rather than just making money off folks like they would have done had they taken a job with Big Business Inc.

Still think if they were true volunteers out to help mankind they'd do it for as little as possible... 100k is a LOT in my book... or hey, at least don't go over into the IRS's definition of "rich" but likewise how many business majors are doing all that work (and rack up that debt) just to make a measly 100k when they could make 1mil a year. Kind of a catch 22 really. Of course the same could be said for politicians. They're poda be doing it to help their country... taking a small salary (well at least in comparison to wall street)... and yet...

And I agree that the entertainers are WAY overpaid for what they do... they aren't building anything, aren't growing anything, aren't curing anything... not that entertainment isn't awesome but it shouldn't IMO warrant payment higher than those people who actually contribute something to improve life on the NEED, versus want, level... or who save lives, particularly the ones who risk their own to do so. Of course, most of those don't consider themselves mere entertainers... that's what birthday clowns are... they are artists... athletes... what they do doesn't provide people with mere entertainment, oh no... they're providing a much needed service to humanity.