Quote:
Originally Posted by bitontheslide
the problem is in the name .... charity. They raise money by false pretences. It's not really a charity in the true sense of the word. It's an organisation that provides assistance to particular areas of depravation while still paying themselves handsome remuneration.
There is a level of expectation (usually wrong) that charities consist of volunteers that do the work for free. That the majority of donations make there way to the afflicted group and it just doesn't work like that
If Bob Geldofs live aid taught us anything, it was that the majority that participate are in it for the money and or fame. That corruption at every step in the process means that only a tiny proportion of the donated funds actually get to the intended recipients
For me to give to a charity these days, i have to see total transparency on who gets what
|
I do think that any charity should spend at MOST 25% on running costs, with 75% actually going to charity, or I'd take it as an indication that something isn't right. Either deliberate profiteering or just over-stretching what they're doing vs what they're bringing in. Should be transparent and falling below that for more than a short period of time should trigger someone looking into it and potential loss of charity status.