Charity

[Mlle. Zabzie]

Ok, I got two things to talk about here.  

1.  There are a couple of facebook memes out there riffing on Matthew 6:1-6:5, which basically suggest that one shouldn't publicize one's commitments to charity.  That this makes the charitable act more about the publication, which somehow negates the charitableness of the act in the first place.  I disagree:

• The charitable act occurred, and presumably somebody got helped by it.  I actually don't care what the motivation is, the act occurred.
• As the imitable @Xray the Enforcer points out, the sentiment is similar to the one that tells (especially) women that they shouldn't look for attention by bragging about their accomplishments, and it also feeds bubbles in that sharing information about a charity one supports on facebook is a good way to let other people know about an organization that they might support.

Look, I'm all opposed to people who say they support a charity but don't give a dime, but if you put your money where your mouth is, get thee on the published donor list and trumpet your giving far and wide, or don't, honestly, I don't care.  But don't not share out of some misguided view that it somehow makes your charitable act better, or more worthy or some nonsense.

 

2.  So separately, there was a discussion yesterday in the US Politics thread about charity and whether charitable giving was the appropriate way to provide a safety net.  My own view is that it is in the government's interest for society at large to pay for a basic safety net (and the arguments should be about how broad that net is) and that charitable giving should fill holes in the safety net (ALS is a great example - may not be the best use of government money, but private dollars have and will continue to provide real hope to people with the condition).

Thoughts?

 

[mormont]

The thing about charity is that it's voluntary, and so in the control of those making the charitable donations. They decide who gets what. As kal points out, from a practical POV this is bad because it results in funding priorities dictated not by needs, but by marketing, social acceptability, and even random chance.

Worse, charity is voluntary, and so in the control of those who give. This leaves the safety net as a generous gift from the deserving to the undeserving, not an entitlement. That's a more corrosive idea than many people realise. Any society needs everyone in it to have a stake. Without that, there is no incentive to agree to the rules - your only tool to enforce and maintain social order is force. You don't get that feeling of a stake in society if what you get comes with strings attached and can be withdrawn by the powerful at will.

So no, charity is not a suitable way of providing a safety net, to any sane person. It can be a useful supplement but that's all.

I really don't mind if people publicise their giving or not: I understand the Christian position, which is part of the general inclination to modesty that is seen as virtuous for people of that faith (and some others), but the benefit of publicising the charity itself is a good argument in the other direction.

[KiDisaster]

I work for a charity. If people didn't loud themselves up after making donations we'd lose a ton of free publicity, and publicity matters.

[Iskaral Pust]

I personally disagree with self-promotion of charitable acts, although it falls pretty low on my list of things with which I disagree.  Praying aloud or invoking your god as a character witness or a justification for any action would be much higher on that list, if we're in Christian territory.  But, hypocritically, I allow our name to be published on the various donor lists at our son's school because there is a heavy pressure on parents to donate and absences are noted and judged negatively.  Our other giving is not recorded or promoted.

I disagree a lot more with tax deductions for charity.  I don't deduct mine and I don't think personally directed donations should exempt you from your tax obligations.  It's effectively a way for wealthy people to decide where exactly some of their tax dollars are spent.

Similarly, I think our social safety net should be a social tax obligation, not a charitable whim.  Some things are a shared responsibility or obligation rather than a kindness.  The democratic process can determine the scope of that social tax obligation.

I have a long list of complaints about the charity industry in general and won't rant about them again.

This question of promotion around charitable giving is pretty close to another topic of marketing in charities.  Many in the charity industry think they should have greater latitude to spend more on marketing, e.g. commissions and incentives for fund raisers, so that the total net amount of donations would be higher even if the admin/marketing overhead % would be higher.  I disagree pretty strongly with that because the marketing spend is a rent-seeking dead weight loss.  The donors would be happier keeping their money than donating it with a big slice being siphoned off for commissions.

[Xray the Enforcer]

Marketing is not the same as "commissions" or "incentives." Totally different goals. In fact, fundraising and marketing are two entirely different departments in any decent-size charity.

[Iskaral Pust]

23 minutes ago, Xray the Enforcer said:

Marketing is not the same as "commissions" or "incentives." Totally different goals. In fact, fundraising and marketing are two entirely different departments in any decent-size charity.

The arguments I have heard covered a wide range of marketing costs from advertising to commissions and incentives.  There was a TED talk on this topic a couple of years ago that got a ton of views.  I'm sure a quick search would find it.  He was a compelling speaker (as most salesmen are) but his blatant self-interest stuck in my throat.

[Greywolf2375]

1 hour ago, Mlle. Zabzie said:

.

• As the imitable @Xray the Enforcer points out, the sentiment is similar to the one that tells (especially) women that they shouldn't look for attention by bragging about their accomplishments, and it also feeds bubbles in that sharing information about a charity one supports on facebook is a good way to let other people know about an organization that they might support.

 

OK, need new contacts.  Read this as "the irritable @Xray the Enforcer"....which, ya know, might be valid but doesn't really fall into a charity conversation.

as far as publicizing if you donated - I don't have a problem with it.  For some things it's not about getting credit for doing something, but maybe for letting someone - or an organization - know that I individually support what you do and will put my name next to it.  My FB feed has been filled since 11/8 with people listing different organizations and charities they have made donations - I think that's a great thing. 

[Iskaral Pust]

2 hours ago, Greywolf2375 said:

as far as publicizing if you donated - I don't have a problem with it.  For some things it's not about getting credit for doing something, but maybe for letting someone - or an organization - know that I individually support what you do and will put my name next to it.  My FB feed has been filled since 11/8 with people listing different organizations and charities they have made donations - I think that's a great thing. 

I guess it's better than the recent trend of virtue signalling where people wear ribbons or use hashtags or other symbols of support to appear woke but don't provide any meaningful support in money, labor or other to actually advance the cause.

[Mladen]

For me, charity is like sex. A true gentleman never speaks about it.

But, charity marketing in Serbia has become infuriating the past several weeks. Now, there was an initiative to not organize New Year celebrations and instead donate the money to the fund (no one knows which fund) dedicated to curing children with rare diseases and those in need of expensive surgeries, procedures and medications. Now, as noble as the intention was, first, many people pointed out that it was all done far too emotionally than it should have been done and that we actually need a long-term strategy for this problem. Second, when some of the celebrations went down, it started to be "we told you, you inhuman bastards" So, yes, it has been infuriating. 

So, if you do it, do it, good for you, better for humanity... But if you post FB status about your humanity and decency, I will roll my eyes...

[The Wedge]

Stating publicly that you support, donate money, or volunteer time to a charity, therefore encourage others to do the same for a cause you deem worthy is perfectly fine for me. 

It's over a line when people brag about HOW MUCH money or HOW MUCH time they volunteer in order to self-aggrandize or make others feel like they aren't doing enough.

When friends, family, or co-workers solicit donations for causes they feel passionate about, I'll investigate the charity and usually end up donating.

[WillWork4NinjaPowers]

I'm a board member for a charity that teaches self defense, karate,and judo to special needs children and adults.  We use peer mentors and volunteer black belts, along with staff from KU Media school (we also provide free OT and PT).  

If people didn't brag about stopping in or donating, it would destroy us.  We're very mom & pop.

 

[OldGimletEye]

1. I don't necessarily see a problem with talking about your charitable giving, particularly if it is something you really believe in. It's a way to let people know about the charity and to inform them. And it can be a good way to signal to others that the charity is credible.

2. The idea that charity can be a replacement for the welfare/social insurance state is a libertarian fantasy. For example, in the US, we have people that we know can't get medical treatment for pre-existing conditions. Many of us or even a majority might think that is morally and ethically outrageous because we may know people in that situation or we may say to ourselves that could be me, but luckily I'm healthy. Now fixing that problem will require a significant amount of resources. People may recognize it's a significant problem and think something should be done about it. However, if you rely on charity to solve that problem, you would likely run into free rider problems. People would likely bet or hope others would give to the charity to fix that problem. And then you basically end up having a coordination failure, so the problem doesn't get resolved. In my view free rider problems and coordination failures are probably the principle reason why a charity only model doesn't work. And then you probably have various principal agency issues with charities that create problems too.

If charities alone were sufficient to solve a variety of social issues, then you'd have to wonder why social democracies or quasi-social democracies started to develop in most advanced industrial nations during the Twentieth Century around WW2. And you'd have wonder why some of the tenets of classical liberalism became to be doubted, particularly in the United States and England where that theory was the strongest.

[all swedes are racist]

12 hours ago, Iskaral Pust said:

 

I have a long list of complaints about the charity industry in general and won't rant about them again.

This question of promotion around charitable giving is pretty close to another topic of marketing in charities.  Many in the charity industry think they should have greater latitude to spend more on marketing, e.g. commissions and incentives for fund raisers, so that the total net amount of donations would be higher even if the admin/marketing overhead % would be higher.  I disagree pretty strongly with that because the marketing spend is a rent-seeking dead weight loss.  The donors would be happier keeping their money than donating it with a big slice being siphoned off for commissions.

Uhh... I'm just gonna go out on a limb here and assume that where ever you got this "many in the charity industry think" likely comes from people who probably work (or at least used to) in 'marketing depts' of rather large organizations. To kinda expand on X-rays point, I'd say most non profits don't even have marketing departments. 

[Datepalm]

As a general principle, I guess I think that bragging about giving to charities, or using it to shore up one's status as a good person is a little tasteless. In practice though, it seems like the way fundraising and awareness in the charity/NGO sector has evolved is that giving to organizations, publicly being associated with them, using them as an advertising platform (for big corporate donors, at least) in a symbiotic sort of branding exercise that's part of the strategy, so in that case I guess the odd facebook link to ones favorite charity is just how it works.

Past that, I'm with Mormont and Isk that relying on charity to plug the gaps of welfare is a long simmering catastrophe and and an implicit (and increasingly explicit) part of pro-capital policies.

[The Marquis de Leech]

4 hours ago, OldGimletEye said:

2. The idea that charity can be a replacement for the welfare/social insurance state is a libertarian fantasy.

The irony being that tax-exempt charities is essentially the government picking and choosing particular behaviours to reward - the very opposite of classical liberalism. Not least because the common-law world's legal definition of "what is charity" has basically remained the same since 1601, so promotion of religion counts - again, so much for the secularising influence of classical liberalism.

With regards to the safety net thing, most charitable giving in the United States is for elite schools and religion - something like 8% goes towards the alleviation of poverty, and that figure drops to 4% among the wealthy (who tend to donate to opera houses and art galleries). It's a terribly inefficient way of caring for the poor.

[Iskaral Pust]

12 hours ago, r'hllor's dirtbag lobster said:

Uhh... I'm just gonna go out on a limb here and assume that where ever you got this "many in the charity industry think" likely comes from people who probably work (or at least used to) in 'marketing depts' of rather large organizations. To kinda expand on X-rays point, I'd say most non profits don't even have marketing departments. 

Very likely.  The loudest voices I've heard were paid fund-raisers of various types.  There's some selection bias: they are going to have the biggest incentive, platform and personality inclination to clamor for such a change.  

[Whitestripe]

12 hours ago, r'hllor's dirtbag lobster said:

To kinda expand on X-rays point, I'd say most non profits don't even have marketing departments. 

Not true in the least. I'd say exactly the opposite it true. I've always worked in not-for-profits and I am on the board of two others. While the smaller ones may not have a dedicated "marketing department" they all spend some money on marketing. Marketing often times gets lumped into "marketing and fundraising" for some. 

As far as charitable giving is concerned, I don't think there is anything wrong with letting people know that you've donated to the annual campaign or whatever of this or that organization. I have a local friend who was recently given some sort of lifetime achievement award for her work at the local Planned Parenthood. She had photos of the gala all over her Facebook page. Good for her. Similarlly, I often see friends all dressed up for an evening at this or that fundraiser. Do I care? Nope. 

What does stick in my craw are those who  have to tout every little "pay it forward" or good thing they've done. I have a family member who revels in telling us about all the things they've done for the poor unfortunates at their church. (Usually while complaining that the recipients would not need the charity if they had only made better life choices.) That rubs me the wrong way. 

[Fragile Bird]

I don't mind people who advertise their charity, I mind people who claim to be charitable but are bullshitting.

ie the President Elect of the United States.

[all swedes are racist]

2 hours ago, Whitestripe said:

Not true in the least. I'd say exactly the opposite it true. I've always worked in not-for-profits and I am on the board of two others. While the smaller ones may not have a dedicated "marketing department" they all spend some money on marketing. Marketing often times gets lumped into "marketing and fundraising" for some. 

As far as charitable giving is concerned, I don't think there is anything wrong with letting people know that you've donated to the annual campaign or whatever of this or that organization. I have a local friend who was recently given some sort of lifetime achievement award for her work at the local Planned Parenthood. She had photos of the gala all over her Facebook page. Good for her. Similarlly, I often see friends all dressed up for an evening at this or that fundraiser. Do I care? Nope. 

What does stick in my craw are those who  have to tout every little "pay it forward" or good thing they've done. I have a family member who revels in telling us about all the things they've done for the poor unfortunates at their church. (Usually while complaining that the recipients would not need the charity if they had only made better life choices.) That rubs me the wrong way. 

Sorry, I should have put marketing dept in rabbit ears. 

[DireWolfSpirit]

I like the ideal of acts and giving when we want to help others in need, as opposed to charity that is made to gain recognition for oneself. Its interesting that people have used memes from biblical passages to comment on this. I'm agnostic but I remember clearly many examples where Jesus was quite explicit about "Not being like these Pharisees" . He was very opposed to the practice of charity (and worship) that was designed to garner attention and stressed humility (the antithesis to self angrandizement) as the gold standard. I agree with Jesus on this subject.

That being said, I think its quite admirable to tout for ones cherished cause or to plant the seeds (idea) of giving.

Regarding the notion of charity as the societal safety net, thats about as adequate as calling draft blankets under your door your heating system for a winter house. You still need a furnace and ducts (government) the blankets are just there to plug the gaps (charity).