It's becoming mandatory.
Every time a person or company engages in some kind of charity, specially involving money, it uses the same boring jargon of how he, she or it is "giving back to society".
The problem here, of course, is not engaging in charity.
The problem is the implicit thought behind "giving back to society", as if the money you earned was not earned by giving to society. In other words, you're just giving to society again, in the form of the money you earned by providing value to society in the past. You're not giving back, you're giving again, and, look, it's even more generous!
Stop feeling guilty for your contributions to society in the form of time, products and services!
interesting thoughts, especially because giving back implements that you took away and I think there are many people who worked for it by (how you explained in this post) giving their manpower to society.
I like the explanation "giving again" you use, especially if the money was earned through hard work.
Exactly. You didn't take away.
You can give back to society by not being wasteful and growing perennial food.
Charities donations are not giving back to Society, They remove funding then the good they do.
but that "funding" they might remove should not have been there in the first place, so that is till good :)
no, that funding got filtered into board member, like bankers and ex politicians
so you are arguing that our society got so fucked up that even charity is bad now?
That could be accurate, Tough not what I was implying. What I imply it that the donations to charities do not do what the amount of donation should be capable of doing, This been due to the savage salaries to board members.
There are good and bad charities, efficiency of the charity is coming to the forefront when people are making decisions on who to donate to, and that's a good thing. Top-heavy charities are such a joke. But on the other hand some of it is due to the fact that C-level salaries have exploded in recent decades as the working class got dismantled. Add in the fact that some CEO's actually do add value by smart decision making and the picture becomes more clouded.
And they do have to be staffed by professionals, and acquiring talent costs money. There are many who believe that charities are just like any other organizations that seek to do everything they can to exist as long as possible, and most just seek to guard their revenue streams or endowments which is one of the main reasons that Bill Gates advocates for charities to be forced to draw down their funds over a set amount of time and dissolve itself.
And one of the biggest reasons we see all the largest charities acting as they do is similar to why billionaires are billionaires, in that those willing to repeatedly do the wrong thing to get ahead are likely to out-compete everyone else if people are none the wiser and buy into their advertising and tactics.
Yes. maybe people choosing the charity they donate to should use more consideration. And charities should be watched closer scrutiny of where funds go.
While we cannot judge all charity by the standards of one charity and all charities should have their individuals values goals and costs. A high % of the revenue generated should go to the fund which is been catered for. My own opinion is if less then 75% is going to the cause and more then 25% is been paid to employee. The charity begins to lose its charitable standing.
Bill Gates is an exception in that he placed his own fortune to a charity foundation, and with such a massive fortune already donated. There should be little no reason to request more donation.
Let us not forget, Charity is an investment in people, and theoretically an investment in one person offers rewards to all. We have probably all heard the phrase teach a person to fish. This is what I find most repulsive about charities. there seem to work more on the reliance of other people to them and the donation from others.
On the total opposite of the charity scheme to Bill Gates. You have charities coming up now, to adopt a polar bear, on this I wonder, How much of the donation is going to go toward preservation of the polar bear habitat? Are these people trying to reverse global warming to preserve te habitat, Ship up thousand of refrigerators open the doors to cool things down up there? Or save the whale, what are they doing within the oceans to save these whales?
The thing is here. There are charities been set up for every and any animal, for any cause cures for disease, help the hungry, housing, medical and any other reason. And another charity is needed each year.
This leads to a question why? (and on surface observation looks no different to a pyramid scheme.) The present cycle will continue, as nothing is been done to erode the the costs. The underlying thing here, is the inequality of society. And while you think of where the finances go. 8% keeps expanding the difference between themselves and those with less.
The bottom line, We live in a democracy of value, not a democracy of vote, Pretty much like Steemit, We have all sorts whales dolphins sharks Minnows etc. Just like Steemit not every vote is counted with equal value, and the strongest vote holds more power. This is the same for the so called democracy we live, the rights of one individual can outweigh the rights of thousands in some cases hundreds of thousands. A charity for everything is created to avoid changing what needs to be changed.
Right at the core is we live in a capitalist democracy. and the less financial stability a person has, the easier it is to dismiss them.
Wow amigo suena fuerte pero cierto.!
like it