[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.