Yabby
I tend to agree - charities are not excluded from ethical accountability on name alone.

However the premise of your thread is to generalise and dabbles in the fallback position of any criticism of the influence of wealth and/or power as either the tall poppy syndrome or bash the rich which only serves to dismiss legitimate concerns in many cases.

Most reasonable people, even on OLO, would no doubt transfer that same sense of fair play and ethical measures to charitable organisations. Why wouldn't they?

Basically any organisation or some of it's peoples can be corrupted.

I don't give a cent to charities supporting the "underprivileged" as I have seen much misuse of them in many areas. As I don't know enough to pick those worth support I support none.

I used to support the Royal Flying Doctor Service, until they went a bit upmarket, & turned into a free regional air taxi service.

I now support 2 helicopter rescue services, as I am damn sure that the people they are helping really do need the help, & right now.

Pericles,

So, donate nothing. Make a stand on your little mound of moral high ground and don't donate based on principle. I know some disabled people who would really appreciate your stance in spite of their needs because the charity they work for have people in administration.

...oh, they'd appreciate no job collecting for their charity, either ... because of your mound...

The SES work that way too. Life Savers. Rural Fire. Care Flight. Red Cross. Search and Rescue. You know, those guys that saved countless lives in my area during the floods last year.

The problem with Vinnies is that they are not allowed to pick and choose.

I used to get several vouchers for meat from them, generally $20.00.

It used to frustrate both myself and the Vinnies guy, when the recipient would have a slab of beer,a bottle of bourbon, or even smokes, sometimes all of the above in their trolley, then come in and seek free meat.

He used to shake his head and say, there's nothing we can do about it, if they ask, we have to give.

In my opinion the best place to address charity wows, would be to stop welfare waste.

That's a really high horse you are on, StG.

>>Pericles, So, donate nothing. Make a stand on your little mound of moral high ground and don't donate based on principle<<

The topic under discussion is not charity, per se.

The topic is "charities", and the way they are used as a gravy train by people who have less interest in the end-result than in their personal enrichment.

It is about the way that we are manipulated through guilt to give money to people who make a feather-bedded living from it - running a charity is a walk in the park, compared with actually managing a real business, complete with suppliers and consumers.

If you must know - although it is no business of yours - I donate regularly to a small number of charities that I know from personal experience are managed by, and populated with, dedicated folk who care more about their responsibilities than their pockets.

>>The SES work that way too. Life Savers. Rural Fire. Care Flight. Red Cross. Search and Rescue. You know, those guys that saved countless lives in my area during the floods last year.<<

Yep, that sort of thing. But you know, they would get far more support from the public if the professional guilt-mongers didn't take so much "look-at-me, aren't I so caring" air-time.

lets muddy more water
ziggy forrest..minimises tax
by gifting to charity..[aint it great when you can pick and chose..where your 'tax' goes]

no doudt anmy charity..would think it clever
to issue..*a tax deductable reciept
for 9 times..the actual ammount donated

same thing
fraud runs though many a loop hole