Why don't you give more to charity?

[NotADailyMailJournalist]

Evening all! Me again!

On my thread about whether you would save your own beloved pet or a stranger's child, 95% of folk were saying that they would choose the stranger's child.

So if we are so keen to save strangers' lives, why are we not giving every penny (even selling everything we own) to buy anti-malaria nets?

(I have previously read that this is the most cost-effective way to save the most lives - £1 = 1 net = 1 life)

Thanks again, I do love a debate!

Because I'm not some type of communist hippy.

I’m not convinced that giving money to charities is the most efficient way to help. So I don’t.

I help people in real life. I volunteer with local organisations. I am a trustee for two local non-profit groups. I feed anyone in my house and give them things they need that I have. I help people who ask for it with hands and ears. But charities who want your money are just selling you a sop for your conscience.

@Blackcats7 I used to volunteer my time to draft wills for charities for Free Wills month. The idea is you get your will for free but you leave a donation to the charity in said will. It was amazing how poorer people understood this and left a gift to the charity in the will but richer people chose not to. Imho poorer people give proportionally more of what they do have than rich people do.

Who says we feel fine about it?!

I do sometimes give a few quid either to a charity collection person or a beggar, but it's very infrequent as I simply can't afford it. I also feel it might get a bit addictive. Like oh, I've done that charity which I'm not even that bothered about, so I'd better do this one as it's about cats and I have a cat and blah blah...it would be never ending. Dementia? Parkinson's? Wartorn countries? The homeless? I care about all those things but I'm broke.
I would give more if I had more disposable income, but it feels like you could end up bombarded with requests from all and sundry if you act too generous!

I choose to give my time to a local charity because I don't trust the big ones to spend appropriately. I know how my effort is spent. I know it is appreciated. Maybe that's shallow of me but there we are. Any spare income we have is going on my children's future, because that looks pitiful right now.

I'm a care worker, earning NMW on a zero hours contract, so I can only do so much.

I have two Direct Debits come out my account on pay day, to charities that mean a lot to me. It's not big money, but enough to know I'm doing what I can afford.

I also spent 4 years volunteering for a charity, until lockdown happened. I didn't go back - it was a nightmare, and I felt completely exploited and wrung out.

I answered that I'd save my dog over a stranger's child.

But I don't give money to charity because they are too expensive to administer. I think the whole charity sector is a con.
I once looked to set up a direct debit to The Dogs Trust, but realised (from their accounts) that there were several employees on £100k+.

I did give £20 a month to a very small local dog shelter for about 3 years.

-You can donate things other than money. I donate items eg nappies, cots, to local baby banks. Supporting local children.

-I can’t fix the world’s problems, so I don’t try to. Nor do I care now to tbh, after being kept on house arrest for months for other vulnerable people.

-Every penny I have is currently being taken by nursery fees. I am not dipping into savings for charity.

I personally don't trust charities to spend effectively. I think there are too many charities now, if the ones that did similar work combined then they would benefit from economies of scale and could put their funds to better use than paying overheads.

I don't like being asking to donate on my meagre wage when the CEOs of charities are out earning me 10x. The same goes for millionaire celebrities asking for donations.

As my wage has increased, I have been more generous to local fund raising and will happily donate £20 to the school when they've asked for £3.

The best way to "give" to charity is to roll up your sleeves and give your time. Time is money, even if you give 1 or 2 days a month (I don't tot it all up. It I probably give 4 days a month), that's still giving to people (or animals if that's your thing) who need help. There's no point boiling the ocean, trying to solve all the problems of the world, just doing what you can, giving time when you can is far more constructive than handing over money.

I donate a lot of the flexi time I "earn" through working extra hours directly to the charity I volunteer for. That's better than giving money, because I know that every minute I "spend" goes directly towards supporting people in need, not into a bottomless pit of finances where I have no control over where my money is spent.

Charities are just a sticky plaster but I reconcile it because the world isn't perfect and I really get a lot of personal satisfaction seeing how my efforts directly help others.

So OP to your point, I don't need to sell everything I own or give £1 for a mozzie net, I give of my time and skills in the service of others, so it's a win-win.

I think there are too many charities now, if the ones that did similar work combined then they would benefit from economies of scale and could put their funds to better use than paying overheads.

it doesn't always work like that.

The charity I volunteer for is a hub that can tap into over 50 separate "ring fenced" military charities, so they each have an army of volunteers, with a few paid staff. Lots of volunteers do local fundraising efforts and support people locally. Sometimes it actually works better to keep things local rather than "globalising". I think the bigger the charity the more likely it is that they become money-sinks with large corporate offices and big salaried Boards and management. Small and local, at the coal-face is often the best way.

Big companies do this for tax write-offs I believe. They benefit when we donate I read. Not sure how it works tho

Imho poorer people give proportionally more of what they do have than rich people do.

Anyone who has shaken a tin in the street or collected door to door knows this. Fancy houses with gates and gardens = shit. Terraced in a normal place = good collection.

I've worked for a number of charities and work for one now. Not a manager so I think I escape the 'overpaid' title. However, I don't know that people understand that skilled people don't just donate all their time. If you want things to happen you need to pay good people to do it. We all care more than most but we have to pay bills as well. My managers are very very intelligent and hard working. And they earn a lot. If people want to do this skilled work for nothing, great. But I don't know anyone who will.

And yes, I give to the Against Malaria Foundation. Partly because I agree that malaria nets are a very cost effective thing to do with my money and partly because I've travelled in Africa and other malarious areas and know how dreadful it is. But I don't give overwhelming amounts. Also the Fistula Foundation is very good for return on donations.

I have heard this. Poorer people will also be net beneficiaries of the tax system whereas if you're earning over quite a modest level you're typically not. So I wonder if that plays into it: people knowing they pay huge sums of money in tax to support others. And yes we may benefit indirectly - I am not saying I refuse to pay for others' kids to be educated! - but right now I can personally feel a bit clobbered by a system which gives me nothing for my circumstances.

I give away the stuff I don't need on local sites, I see that as my charity box ticked. I'll also stick a blue token in those slot things at Tesco.

I don't give to larger charities as I doubt very much reaches the actual person in need.

I sadly don’t trust large charities to manage my donation effectively. I would donate time at a local level for a small charity where I could directly see the benefits.

I believe in a civilised society that the need for charities is a failure of the state. Vote accordingly

If this was the only reason, wouldn't people be doing more for child poverty in this country? Or donating more to great ormand street, for example?

I give time to animal charities and consider myself generous in responding to specific local needs. However, I can say without a doubt that I would save my dog before a strangers child. My child has already gone through losing a sibling (so I know what it's like to lose a child) and I won't choose for them to lose their dog (which is also a relatively young service dog). In choosing the dog, I am choosing my own child.

Because in your pet scenario I felt like I was in a room with two buttons in it saying 'die' and picking who would 100% die and the decision was 100% mine

In this scenario, the people may or may not actually get malaria and may or may not die of it. Like loads of people clearly live in malaria zones without nets and live. And the decision isnt 100% mine. Other people might provide nets.

All of my time/energy/money goes on keeping my own family from becoming a charity case to be honest!
We had a takeaway that cost £50 at the weekend, we could have gone without that and donated the money to charity but I don't feel we should miss out on the odd treat otherwise what is the point in working?
Where does it end, if I buy my kids some new clothes should I feel guilty that a child on the other side of the world only has rags to wear?
I have 2 beautiful dogs, perhaps I should downgrade their food and send the difference to the RSPCA to help other dogs?
So to answer your question, I am not prepared to downgrade my life any more than it already is in a vain attempt to cure all of the world's ills.

So that my money can be used to ship predatory men into sites of tragedy and they can trade relief supplies for sex with desperate women and girls? While ultra woke head offices talk pump out bollocks that sex work is work, and how meddling white feminists should keep their mouths shut?

Nope, consider my trust capital entirely diminished.

It's the the bystander effect. The tendency to think that someone else in the wider group will do it. Saving a neighbour's child becomes a priority if we are the only ones or one of very few in a position to help. But when giving to charity for a faraway cause, the perception becomes that there's many others who can help and we don't tend to step in.

Charity donations now are a type of virtue signalling especially true of those that do an event for charity e.g. marathon. It's all about the entrant feeling good rather than acknowledging they have guilt tripped friends and neighbours to donating to charities they may not have a particular affinity with.

Chuggers now have a bad name and it is shown that the vulnerable and elderly give amounts they really can't afford. In the medical field charity monies that could have real impact on terms of fundamental science support is diverted to improving the 'patient experience' which really doesnt address the true cause of the problem but lead a to lot of great photo ops for the charity.

Celebs use charity cynically to promote their careers and it always amuses me how they except Joe Public to give without revealing how much they give themselves are now many other opportunities they are getting in the celeb junket due to the PR.

Let's get back to charity being simple and very much a private decision.