[pdimitar]

I may eat some downvotes for this but I really need to say it. It's a bit off-topic, too.

Please, do not start believing you will be making a difference through charity.

I observed rich people in the past that out of some half-conscious guilt started thinking they need to give back in some way. But they don't want to be inconvenienced by doing it personally or by evaluating which people deserve a donation or have an important material problem solved, by themselves. They prefer to unload their guilt -- or the need to feel good about themselves -- through a 3rd party. Basically, buying goodwill and good conscience with money.

That's not giving back.

I have known several rich people and they go through a very similar process. It's very saddening to observe.

If you want to make a difference with money -- go out there. Physically! Meet people with less. Talk to them. Ask them what is the hardest thing in their lives at the moment. Ask them what's a regular concern for them. Do that 100 times, or 500 times. Understand their struggle. Many would just squander the money in a week, even if you gave them a bag of it. Try and aim your efforts and money where it will truly count.

It's not an easy thing to do. But it's a worthy cause to pursue, much more worthy that a random charity.

Apologies for off-topic.

[flush]

I strongly disagree. Financially supporting a charity is an extremely good way for someone with a lot of money to give back. The charitable person may not have expertise to distribute the money effectively, whereas a group who are familiar with the needs and thus where the money should go and how it should be used will use it well.

IMO, what you're saying is akin to saying: Criminals on the streets? Why pay to hire more cops when you can physically go out on the streets and BE the cop?

[thelock85]

That’s a fascinating take. I interpreted the comment more as charities (in some cases) can be a poor startup vehicle for those getting into serious philanthropy. So why not spend some time getting to know an issue or a specific community affected by an issue, before donating. More like: Criminals on the streets, despite more cops? Why? Maybe this money can make communities safer or deter would-be criminals?

[pdimitar]

Very wrong analogy, sorry. You are misrepresenting what I said.

You are also very generously assuming that charities actually do what they are supposed to. Here in Eastern Europe where I live this has been proven to be false, many times. Are you convinced it's better where you live?

[brianpgordon]

In the United States larger nonprofits have a great deal of public accountability. They have to file public financial statements and there are numerous watchdog groups which publish ratings on their effectiveness. Check out Charity Navigator for example. You can also give to organizations like GiveWell which are paid specifically to research nonprofits and direct funds effectively.

[Infinitesimus]

Have you ever known poor people for whom money and charity donations actually changes their lives? There are quite a lot of those all over this big world.

[pdimitar]

Serious answer: no. Never. And those who just received money like that squandered them in no time.

Granted this is anecdotal evidence but my overlook on a number of average people flaws -- and I am including myself in this group, I am not pretending like I am on some sort of a moral high ground, mind you -- indicates that most people are not... ready to receive money, if that's even the right word.

It's more or less "OMG money money money!!!!" out of them and they just mess up.

But truthfully, and this is not sarcasm, I'd love to be proven wrong.