The above was sent to me by an old army buddy. For me it becomes very obvious which charities I'll be giving my money to. I'm also going to convince everyone I can to stop giving to the American Red Cross, United Way, and UNICEF as well as try to organize protest against them until their CEOs give up their rediculous salaries. I mean c'mon, what kind of society are we living in, where even the charities are full of greedy bastards.
Sometimes Charities Make me Sick
- Thread starter Commodore
- Start date
The above was sent to me by an old army buddy. For me it becomes very obvious which charities I'll be giving my money to. I'm also going to convince everyone I can to stop giving to the American Red Cross, United Way, and UNICEF as well as try to organize protest against them until their CEOs give up their rediculous salaries. I mean c'mon, what kind of society are we living in, where even the charities are full of greedy bastards.
I don't necisarrily see that as a problem, given the sheer amoutn of money the American Red Cross has to handle, and the number of employees they manage. The more important thing to track is the % of donated money that goes to overhead, not salaries.
Dreadnought
Deity
This is why I exclusively donate, when necessary, to the Salvation Army.
squadbroken
King
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2009
- Messages
- 716
I do see the salaries as a problem. Nobody should be able to get rich working for a charity, I don't care how many people they have to manage or how much money they have to be responsible for.
The Salvation Army only pays their guy 13,000 a year and he manages over 2 billion dollars.
The Salvation Army is also a church.
aimeeandbeatles
watermelon
- Joined
- Apr 5, 2007
- Messages
- 20,112
Why do I get the feeling that this is a unverified chain email thing?
Ajidica
High Quality Person
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2006
- Messages
- 22,480
Because no source was provided to where the email was cribbed from, or inline sources.
EDIT: And also what downtown said. The UNICEF director has responsibilities at least as complex as a fortune 500 CEO, if not more complex.
As to the Rolls-Royce thing, Jeremy Clarkson of Top Gear has demonstrated you can buy a rolls for 5000 pounds.
Big nonprofits require executive talent just like any other business. Even the highest salaries listed in the OP are well below base pay for the CEOs of large companies. Plus, as the executive of a nonprofit, you are missing out on stock options and the like.
For those of you holding up the guy managing $2 billion on $13,000 per year - should you be making way less than $13,000 a year because you do not manage $2 billion?
Sure, when you donate, you should perhaps consider how much of your dollar is going to the cause. But also think of how much of your dollar when making a purchase from a for-profit company goes to profit rather than salary and overhead. The amount going to the cause represents the "profit" of a nonprofit.
For those of you holding up the guy managing $2 billion on $13,000 per year - should you be making way less than $13,000 a year because you do not manage $2 billion?
Sure, when you donate, you should perhaps consider how much of your dollar is going to the cause. But also think of how much of your dollar when making a purchase from a for-profit company goes to profit rather than salary and overhead. The amount going to the cause represents the "profit" of a nonprofit.
PeteAtoms
FormulaRandom
I agree with this. Any kind of not-for-profit, charity, church, etc, loses face as far as I'm concerned, when certain employees are being paid large sums of money.
The woman who works as a clerk at a Salvation Army thrift store will make more than 13,000 a year, and I'm positive there are administrative positions in the organization that pay over 50K. The 13,000 might be symbolic or something.
warpus
Sommerswerd asked me to change this
Yeah, I would feel bad giving money to a charity that pays some of its employees $500,000+.. Heck, even $200,000+
I understand the realities of running a large organization and needing the best people for the job, but that just doesn't sit right with me..
I understand the realities of running a large organization and needing the best people for the job, but that just doesn't sit right with me..
Miles Teg
Nuclear Powered Mentat
People actually get angry about chain letters they get before checking out Snopes?
Long story short: the charities mentioned are about middling on the efficiency scale, with about 10ish% of the money raised going to expenses and salary. Salvation Army spends about 20ish% on the same stuff. General of Salvation Army gets about 200K in compensation.
Long story short: the charities mentioned are about middling on the efficiency scale, with about 10ish% of the money raised going to expenses and salary. Salvation Army spends about 20ish% on the same stuff. General of Salvation Army gets about 200K in compensation.
The important urge to overcome is to not refuse to give, just because you don't like some charities. Find charities that do what you want.
Tani Coyote
Son of Huehuecoyotl
- Joined
- May 28, 2007
- Messages
- 15,191
Considering how much good these charities do, talented executives theoretically do deserve a large paycheck.
Realistically speaking, large salaries are here to stay, charity or non. Look at the salaries of the President and Congress - it's quick to argue for slashing them, but it doesn't amount to anything. It's important to look at percentages - most charities, even those with a high absolute value top salary, give away the vast majority of their funds. A 100 K salary means NOTHING when you are giving away a billion dollars a year.
Also, the Salvation Army? Those guys who actively deny gay and atheist members? Those guys who threatened to close their soup kitchens in New York because they were considering giving rights to gays? They have a political axe to grind, and don't deserve "charitable" status accordingly.
Of course, I wish charity work was 100% volunteers, so there was practically no money that didn't go to the people, but that's not how it is, unfortunately.
Realistically speaking, large salaries are here to stay, charity or non. Look at the salaries of the President and Congress - it's quick to argue for slashing them, but it doesn't amount to anything. It's important to look at percentages - most charities, even those with a high absolute value top salary, give away the vast majority of their funds. A 100 K salary means NOTHING when you are giving away a billion dollars a year.
Also, the Salvation Army? Those guys who actively deny gay and atheist members? Those guys who threatened to close their soup kitchens in New York because they were considering giving rights to gays? They have a political axe to grind, and don't deserve "charitable" status accordingly.
Of course, I wish charity work was 100% volunteers, so there was practically no money that didn't go to the people, but that's not how it is, unfortunately.
useless
Social Justice Rogue
The Salvation Army are pretty scummy in their own right, what with being an openly homophobic organisation; such as
Screwing others in San Francisco, because of San Francisco's domestic partners law and Openly and actively working against homosexuals.
Screwing others in San Francisco, because of San Francisco's domestic partners law and Openly and actively working against homosexuals.
I just don't understand why the Salvation Army must flaunt its deviant lifestyle in front of so many commercial venues. At least conventional panhandlers don't torture me with all that bell ringing.
Tani Coyote
Son of Huehuecoyotl
- Joined
- May 28, 2007
- Messages
- 15,191
As they're a church, I feel they have a legal right to discriminate. Of course, legal status =/= morality, and out of principle I refuse to do business with any who discriminate in such a manner.
Since the Church receives public funding, it should DEFINITELY not be allowed to have a political voice, end of. Never mind the doctrine of the wall of separation(which should be made fully constitutional given it's currently a gray area).
The doctrine of "love the sinner, not the sin" should be invoked. Even if the Church doesn't agree with gay rights, it shouldn't punish them. The whole point of Christianity is to love thy enemy just as much as your best friend. You can't cherrypick which part of your faith to believe, dangit.
Never mind, they're hurting people completely unrelated to this when they threaten to shut down charities. They're putting moral values above compassion, and that's where they've gone astray.
I heard recently they started being more willing to tolerate gay rights and work with those who accept it, and they were slammed by conservative groups such as Focus on the Family accordingly.
Since the Church receives public funding, it should DEFINITELY not be allowed to have a political voice, end of. Never mind the doctrine of the wall of separation(which should be made fully constitutional given it's currently a gray area).
The doctrine of "love the sinner, not the sin" should be invoked. Even if the Church doesn't agree with gay rights, it shouldn't punish them. The whole point of Christianity is to love thy enemy just as much as your best friend. You can't cherrypick which part of your faith to believe, dangit.
Never mind, they're hurting people completely unrelated to this when they threaten to shut down charities. They're putting moral values above compassion, and that's where they've gone astray.
I heard recently they started being more willing to tolerate gay rights and work with those who accept it, and they were slammed by conservative groups such as Focus on the Family accordingly.
Similar threads
