I dislike charity.

Most recent example: I was asked to participate/lead our team's Movember campaign at my company.

How I politely declined: oh sorry, I'm a bit too busy with my personal life and work projects this year.

My unpopular opinion I couldn't say: it doesn't align with my values.

Movember raises money and promotes awareness of Men's health. Nothing wrong with the organisation themselves, but frankly I think the paltry couple of thousand of dollars our (pretty large) company manages to raise each year is a waste of time.

If we taxed corporations a fraction of a percent more on corporate profits we would bring is orders of magnitude more money than individuals asking others, out of the kindness of the hearts, for money.

Health research shouldn't have to beg for money, the government should just fund it with tax dollars. Taxes that you don't get to choose to pay. Other than by voting.

I hate fun runs, and do subtly judge those who participate in them, especially because (I think) they skew towards wealthier people, and it's their way of making themselves feel good for raising money for cancer or whatever, and then turn around and vote for tax cuts, and use accountants to make their tax liability as low as possible - something poorer people can't afford.

I used to give money to charity when I was younger. But I honestly think it's silly now, and it ought not have to exist.

(Mods, this is politics adjacent, but I feel is general enough to be compliant, since I'd say most people view charity organisations mostly favourably)

20 comments

Any corporate sponsored charity event is 100% just a tax break for the corp paid for by others.
- Not quite. It is also cost-effective marketing
- Yep, if work is asking to participate in charity I just let them know I already have a couple preferred charities I already work with/donate to. If they're interested in helping give them a link to doctors without borders, ffrf, local homeless or veterans support, etc.
I worked for a grocery chain in south east America called, Publix. Every year they have a big meeting about United Way, a large organization that accepts donations to then handpick what charities the money goes to. Overall I have no problem with united way, it solves the question "what should I donate to". What i didn't like was that Publix handed out forms at the end of the meeting heavily suggesting how much money from each paycheck should be donated to united way. It was just a big guilt trip. They kept track of which location donated the most and proudly patted theirselves on the back. Like every other corporation we weren't paid enough and overworked. Prices climbed higher and the CEO got richer. When I was up for promotion my manager said it would look better if I donated more money per paycheck. Why the fuck would he be able to see that? Why the fuck would that be a factor as to whether I got promoted?
- There are multiple issues with this method, though.
  
  First of all, United Way takes a great deal of money of the donated funds off the top for themselves and only 7 cents of every dollar actually make it to the chosen organization. So it would be much better for you to donate directly to the organization so they receive 100% of your donation.
  
  Secondly, when you donate money through your paycheck (or at the register when shopping), this is added to the the pool of money that the company claims as being donated as a "corporate donation" which comes off of their taxes at the end of the year and to make it seem like good PR for them (ie, "Publix gave X amount of dollars to charity this year"), all the while none of it actually coming out of their own account book.
  
  Absolutely no one should know if you did or didn't contribute through your paycheck, and if that is being used as a reason to limit your promotion potential please speak to HR (I know you are no longer there, but others may need to hear this, or you may have a future employer that uses a similar system).
Your assumption that all people who participate in charity oppose greater public services is false.
- Fair enough, my more nuanced opinion is that there is a large number of people who do give to charity, feel good about it, spread the opinion that it's a feel good thing, and do indirectly cause voters to feel like they already give enough money to charity and higher taxes are unfair. I am aware this opinion is unpopular, hence the post to get it off my chest haha
  
  People participating in charity aren't wrong, just the perception that it's something to advocate people giving to, without also advocating for stronger public services in the same breath.
  
  My title was perhaps a little click-baity.
  
  I don't dislike charity, I dislike people (and charities) encouraging others to give money to charity, without also advocating for better public services via taxation. And many, many charities don't do this, which I don't understand since many charities also get public funding (at least in my state of Victoria, Australia, they do)
  
  This opinion is also subject to the relative stability of the government you live under. In my case, very stable, and totally doable.
More taxes and less charity
- Indeed, perhaps in retrospect my title was a little click-baity
The only charity I participate in is donating food and toys to animal shelters. It’s somewhat self-serving, as I donate foods and toys my pets don’t like/wont use. But all the same, I’ve donated thousands worth this way.

I like thrift shops, but I don’t really consider resale to be charity even if proceeds are used for charity (that aspect isn’t relevant to me). I used to donate more to stuff but I just feel used now.. why do you need my $5, which I also need, when you have 20 million other dollars for stuff?

I’m firmly of the opinion, as you are, that charity directed at supporting humans shouldn’t exist because the government (either local or national) should be handling it. The fact that that isn’t the case says a lot about us as a society.

Also fun runs specifically should be outright banned. It’s just a bunch of pretentious healthy assholes blocking traffic all day every weekend because there’s fucking always a fun run somewhere. “I know, let’s support some dispersed group by massively inconveniencing everyone around us, because that makes us good people!!” Fuck you. Go exercise on your own street. Nobody needs to see you doing it.
I’ve had this debate with myself a few times. In my country air ambulances (helicopters) are often funded by a charity, while normal ambulances are funded by the state. Such essential services shouldn’t be relying on charity to exist.

In work I’ve also been involved in providing services to major national charities, and I’ve often been shocked by the amount of waste and inefficiency going on behind the scenes.

That said I also know plenty of local charity groups that are well runs and make a big difference to the area. I’m not anti charity, but I think it does deserve more accountability.
I'm not too fond of most charities, but donate to a select few that I consider aren't money-laundering machines or straight up get-rich schemes for their founders, and of course I donate to open-source. In the absence of a functional system, what options do you think we have to bridge the gap?

I'm not saying you're doing nothing, but I often see the attitude that it's not worth doing anything until something has changed, but not doing anything is a guaranteed way to never bring about change. That attitude (again, not saying you have it) feels like either giving up or looking for an excuse to do nothing.
- I'm not advocating for doing nothing (and appreciate the way you phrased your criticism giving me the benefit of the doubt)
  
  I think specifically my position is that the solution is political, and a better motivated voting base, who understands the value of not reducing taxes and public funding.
  
  I don't think (all) charities are a waste, and think many orgs do a decent job.
  
  However, I think I didn't make it clear that I find people feeling good about giving to charity, and encouraging others to do so by framing it as a "feel good" thing, rubs me the wrong way because I believe charities who perform core functions are a symptom of the fact we're underfunding vital services.
  
  I'm not telling people to not donate to charity, but I think it's high time people stop believing that they've done their part for society, when voting to fix the system (absolutely, 100% possible where I'm from, which is Australia, one of the wealthiest countries in the world) would be much, much, more impactful that giving some money to a charity.
  
  That is a nuanced take I very much do agree with. Thank you for explaining.
I think there's a little difference between charity in general and "charity events" or "fundraisers".

One one hand, you've got people personally deciding to give some money towards something they chose to support, which is great.

But sponsored fundraisers are actually a bit weird.

Fundraiser: "Hi, would you like to donate £10 to help cure cancer?"

Potential donor: "I'm an incredibly wealthy man, so I can easily afford that... but... you just want me to give you some money in exchange for nothing?"

Fundraiser: "It's not nothing - you get to know you've helped a worthy cause, made the world a better place..."

Potential donor: "No... unless... no, sorry, that's ridiculous..."

Fundraiser: "No, wait! Tell me your idea!"

Potential donor: 'Well, I could probably give you some money... if someone suffered."

Fundraiser: "Suffered?!?"

Potential donor: "Yes, I want you to make a fat, asthmatic man run a marathon, dressed in a really awkward, incredibly warm costume that makes him look ridiculous. If he suffers enough, you can have your £10 for whatever it was you were on about."

Fundraiser: "Curing cancer is seen to be a good cause - are you sure you couldn't just donate the money?"

Potential donor: "Yes. I can only give away a tiny pittance of money if there is suffering. You could also make the man sit in a bathtub full of beans for a whole day. I imagine that's unpleasant enough to appease my hunger for suffering."

Surely we all agree this whole concept is a bit weird?
- I have no idea about the bean thing, I assume there’s some missing context there. But charity runs are not about suffering, people do them because it’s a fun activity to organize around. It has nothing to do with forcing people to suffer lol that’s ridiculous.
  
  In the UK, at least, the beans thing is simply:
  
  Will you give money to charity?
  No
  
  If someone sits in a bathtub full of cold baked beans for eight hours, will you give money to charity?
  Yes
  
  As for the suffering, it might sound ridiculous, but it appears to be a recognised tactic for fundraisers.
  The Conversation: The Martyrdom Effect - Why your pain boosts a charity's gain
I don't donate to charity, but I do donate to the Special Olympics in my area. My little sister is an athlete in it and she is thriving now that she's part of something. It's a really good thing for everyone involved and I want it to continue. I've never seen proof in my area that charities are actually putting donations to use in a tangible way. I've looked into it, too, out of curiosity.
You don't hate Charity, you hate that charity is necessary.

We should not have the problems that charities exist to try and solve. I think most would agree with that.

The problem is that people couldn't agree on which areas we should tackle first. Is it sick kids? Cancer patients? Mental health?

We can't do all of the things, that's the real issue, so we end up picking and choosing the things we feel are most important. And that's what charities really do, they give you a chance to pick the thing that matters most to you.
- Yeah, perhaps my title was a little click-baity. I do hate to hat charity is necessary.
  
  I do, however, dislike charities and people asking for money for charity, not encouraging people to vote for stronger public services.

20 comments