I've seen that in real life. 2 women were raising money for this cancer kids charity, in their defense they did help a lot of kids but my wife noticed that they had extremely luxurious houses, kids in private schools that I can't afford and one of the woman's husband is not even working while the other had an average paying job.
Is easy to take your share when the sums are large enough and you can set your own salary without having to make a profit, problem in the article is that they appear to have taken most of the money from the charity.
The "CEO" of the Good Shepherd Soup Kitchen in Ottawa that created the fake hoax about the Freedom Convoy truckers stealing food from the homeless, makes 140k a year and only 26% of the charity's revenues ever reaches the downtrodden.
26% of the charity's revenues ever reaches the downtrodden.
26% go to programs. There's not even a guarantee that it reaches anyone in need. Programs have a wide latitude, things like "free job training" and "life skills coaching" are valid 'programs' that don't help anyone other than the person paid to put them on.
It works in small scale too. Couple weeks ago I volunteered at a parish to process (categorize) donated clothing before distribution. The married women there would occasionally take something nice and separate it for themselves or their family. When you're doing ”a good deed” it's easier to justify some things to yourself.
many charities keep 80-90% of the incoming money for "operational costs", which really what they mean by that is payments to the top executives, pittance of salaries to the lower workers who organize volunteer labor, and a shitload spent on extravagant events designed to bring in more money for more extravagant events for the top executives.
and then they hide it all in PR releases with weasel words and accounting tricks. for example, Red Cross raised something $500m with the haitian earthquakes. they claim they spent over 90% on aid, but by their own admissions, it doesn't even crack $350m, they refuse any sort of accounting on the projects, and the spending is wildly more than what any normal estimate would be for those levels of services, even in a disaster zone. whistleblowers admitted tons of money is spent on marketing donation requests, and then they stockpile it into the endowment, only spending dividends. this is how their CEO gets paid over a half million in salary every year, on top of all the ridiculous perks.
I've seen that in real life. 2 women were raising money for this cancer kids charity, in their defense they did help a lot of kids but my wife noticed that they had extremely luxurious houses, kids in private schools that I can't afford and one of the woman's husband is not even working while the other had an average paying job.
Is easy to take your share when the sums are large enough and you can set your own salary without having to make a profit, problem in the article is that they appear to have taken most of the money from the charity.
The "CEO" of the Good Shepherd Soup Kitchen in Ottawa that created the fake hoax about the Freedom Convoy truckers stealing food from the homeless, makes 140k a year and only 26% of the charity's revenues ever reaches the downtrodden.
26% go to programs. There's not even a guarantee that it reaches anyone in need. Programs have a wide latitude, things like "free job training" and "life skills coaching" are valid 'programs' that don't help anyone other than the person paid to put them on.
Excellent point
It works in small scale too. Couple weeks ago I volunteered at a parish to process (categorize) donated clothing before distribution. The married women there would occasionally take something nice and separate it for themselves or their family. When you're doing ”a good deed” it's easier to justify some things to yourself.
You see that with rich jews during the day ... they're donating to children's causes too ... because they're busy raping them at night.
Ironically I'd always do the opposite. I'd take the shit not worth giving for gym clothes or shop towels
many charities keep 80-90% of the incoming money for "operational costs", which really what they mean by that is payments to the top executives, pittance of salaries to the lower workers who organize volunteer labor, and a shitload spent on extravagant events designed to bring in more money for more extravagant events for the top executives.
and then they hide it all in PR releases with weasel words and accounting tricks. for example, Red Cross raised something $500m with the haitian earthquakes. they claim they spent over 90% on aid, but by their own admissions, it doesn't even crack $350m, they refuse any sort of accounting on the projects, and the spending is wildly more than what any normal estimate would be for those levels of services, even in a disaster zone. whistleblowers admitted tons of money is spent on marketing donation requests, and then they stockpile it into the endowment, only spending dividends. this is how their CEO gets paid over a half million in salary every year, on top of all the ridiculous perks.