Is Giving Directly to the Needy or Through a Charity the Best Option?

  • Thread starter Thread starter drankin
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the complexities of giving to panhandlers and the moral dilemmas involved. Participants share personal experiences with street beggars, revealing a range of reactions from giving money to outright refusal. Many express skepticism about the intentions of beggars, citing encounters with individuals who appear to be exploiting generosity or using funds for substances rather than necessities. Some participants prefer to donate to established charities like soup kitchens and shelters, believing these organizations ensure aid reaches those in genuine need. Others recount instances where they offered food instead of cash, highlighting a desire to provide help without enabling potential misuse of funds. The conversation also touches on societal issues, such as mental illness and homelessness, and the effectiveness of government assistance programs versus direct aid. Overall, the thread reflects a tension between compassion and caution in addressing homelessness and poverty.
  • #31
Moonbear said:
I ignore them and keep walking. If they don't have money for food, they can go to the soup kitchen. If they need a place to sleep with a roof over their head, they can go to the shelter. I'll more than gladly donate to soup kitchens and shelters where I know the money is going to feed the homeless and hungry or give them a roof over their head to sleep at night, but I will not give cash handouts to beggars.
Moonbear's badass.

The longer you've lived in say, India, the sooner you start to learn you can't give money to every beggar.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
Moonbear said:
Wow, I've never heard of a charity refusing an anonymous donation before. Usually the only reason to give your name is if you need a receipt for a tax deduction. That's sad that they would do that.

I could hardly believe it! Clearly this is a racket. But it is supposed to be one of the most respected institutions of its kind, in Oregon.
 
Last edited:
  • #33
turbo-1 said:
That is a bit strange, but if they can sell the names of names of people who make large donations, and sell them multiple times, that's probably a big source of income.

Yes, which I see as being more than a little disingenuous; in fact it is pretty slimy in my book. I certainly regretted my donation, for months!
 
  • #34
Ivan Seeking said:
Yes, which I see as being more than a little disingenuous; in fact it is pretty slimy in my book. I certainly regretted my donation, for months!
So did my wife and myself after the Katrina donation. It can take a long time to make these outfits purge you from their mailing lists, and I'm sure that some of those outfits sold our names, too. Thankfully, the begging has settled down to a more tolerable level.
 
  • #35
Mk said:
The longer you've lived in say, India, the sooner you start to learn you can't give money to every beggar.

Okay, so give to every other one. :biggrin:
 
  • #36
I will give $ to the person almost always( if I do not have any $ but I have some food then I give food) after all I have clothes on my back , people who love me, and a home to go too.
 
  • #37
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- More than 25 percent of the homeless population in the United States are war veterans, although they represent only 11 percent of the civilian adult population, according to a report to be released Thursday. [continued]
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/11/08/homeless.veterans/index.html
 
  • #38
It's hard to know whether it is better to give aid directly to the needy or via an organised charity.

Giving directly is open to abuse both in distinguishing between the genuinely needy and the professional beggar and in how the recipient spends the donation - drink, substance abuse etc.

Giving via a recognised charity however also has it's pitfalls with much of the donated money being skimmed off in 'expenses'. eg

MADD's `exorbitant costs' anger charity's volunteers

Kevin Donovan
staff reporter

People who donate to Mothers Against Drunk Driving are told by the charity that most of the $12 million it raises annually is spent on good works — stopping drunk driving and helping families traumatized by fatal crashes.

But a Star investigation reveals most of the high-profile charity's money is spent on fundraising and administration, leaving only about 19 cents of each donor dollar for charitable works.
Perhaps gov't ran programs are a better option.
 

Similar threads

Replies
4
Views
539
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
27
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K