• KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    cake
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    16 hours ago

    They are just grifts that take a majority of those donations to enrich their executives and maybe 5-15% actually goes to the cause you support.

    any references i can look at for this claim?

    • exploitedamerican@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      9 hours ago

      There is no law mandating that charities have to give any specific amount of the money they collect which is why many charitable organizations can get away with siphoning as much as they they can to executive pay and administrative costs 5-15% may be a lowballed generalization there are likely some people in these roles who do better. Red cross claims 90% goes to the cause but thats highly unusual. There are 42 different charitable non profits in the us where their ceo alone is paid over $1,000,000. The ceo of the sloane kettering cancer research center, Selwyn Vickers earns an annual compensation of just over $5.7 million. Now thats not much for a charity that takes in 7.3 billion but i would be surprised if more than 1.5 billion of that actually went to cancer research My favorite argument against charity is by Slavoj Ziezek in “first as tragedy then as farce” who argues that charity demoralizes and degrades it is immoral to use private property to alleviate the issues caused and exacerbated by private property society instead needs to be reorganized so that poverty is impossible.

      Here is some good reading on how the system of charitable non profit organizations is abused bh the wealthy to further enrich themselves

      https://ips-dc.org/report-true-cost-of-billionaire-philanthropy/