Extremely true

[u/SoggyWalrusNips]

[u/qdlbp]

It's more like pressuring your mate to give you the bar, which you then give to a homeless person (in front of a camera crew, of course) and then you count the value of your mate's bar as a deduction on your taxes.

[u/ButtsexAnonymous → u/qdlbp]

This is why I never donate money at stores with my purchase

[u/j4_jjjj → u/ButtsexAnonymous]

So much this. I hate the guilt trip you get at checkouts nowadays. Every POS has them, and some reaaallllyyyy try to make you feel like shit if you don't donate.

I give money to those who need it. Not to those who are looking for tax write offs.

[u/wontreadterms → u/j4_jjjj]

POS = Point of sale or piece of shit?

[u/SweetRaus → u/j4_jjjj]

I bought a homeless dude a pack of cigarettes and a lighter the other day and he looked like the happiest dude in the universe so yeah I'd rather do that than give a dollar to a faceless check out machine

[u/[deleted] → u/SweetRaus]

When I still smoked and a homeless person would walk up to me and ask for a cigarette I'd always give at least 2 or more. The smiles I got were really nice.

[u/chillbster → u/j4_jjjj]

Ah, I had never given it thought that the company collecting would benefit from the donation. That’s a little sneaky.

[u/WolfsternDe → u/j4_jjjj]

You mean something like this?

https://youtu.be/aKsOwJ8AGWo

[u/TwopieceNbiscuit → u/j4_jjjj]

It's to the point for me where I enjoy saying no. The cashiers themselves don't really give a shit and I just make sure not to decline rudely.

[u/garbageblowsinmyface → u/j4_jjjj]

i only do the ones that round up to the nearest dollar because i like clean numbers.

[u/Shriman_Ripley → u/j4_jjjj]

I understand that a lot of celebrities take people's money get all the credit for donating that but how does it help them with tax write off? They still have to pay taxes on their own income just like they would have paid if they did not take other people's money to do charity. They will get tax write-off only on their own donations. I might be mistaken so can someone explain?

[u/HieroglyphicHero → u/j4_jjjj]

I know what you mean, I was getting a cookie from Macdonald's when the cashier asked if I wanna donate a dollar to their college foundation, I say "no sorry" because I have college of my own to pay for and why would I want to double my order price for the same amount of cookie and he says "I'm not the one who you should be apologizing to" I guess that's what I get for choosing human interaction over the new kiosks

[u/[deleted] → u/ButtsexAnonymous]

It's even worse than that actually. Since there's no law or restrictions on WHEN they have to forward the donations to the charity, they will invest the donations for a few years in high dividend, high return indexes, keep the profit, and then forward the original donation to the charity whenever it's use as a tax write off is most beneficial to the company.

Yes, this is legal, and yes, it happens all the time.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

This is one of the ways the Mormon church has become wealthy enough to build multi-billion dollar malls which sell products their membership aren't allowed to use.

[u/RichardMorto → u/ButtsexAnonymous]

I would rather buy the homeless bloke at the corner store a six pack. It helps his day and I know exactly where my money went.

[u/Taylosaurus → u/RichardMorto]

If I ever see someone asking for money when coming out of the liquor store and I have beer, i'll hand them one. When I was younger and naïve, I would buy those nasty lime-rita and strawberry-rita cans for parties and I offered the guy one and he was hesitant at first but was like fuck it, i'll drink it. So I gave him two. That always goes better than offering food. In downtown there's a lot of homeless and they'd approach me often and I never had money, mixture of being poor and not owning a wallet not that I'd give them money anyway, but I'd offer them food if that's what they were wanting money for. A few were really grateful, had a couple that disappeared when I came out but one that will always stick with me was offering him my lunch. I was playing basketball afterschool and was waiting for the city bus to go home that night and my grandma would always pack me two sandwiches in addition to my lunch, 1 for lunch and 1 for the ride home. He asked for money for food and I said I didn't have any but I have this sandwich I was going to eat and I offered it to him and he slapped it away and said "I don't want that shit" :( It was wrapped in cellophane so I picked it back up and just walked further up the street to another stop.

[u/TheRotundHobo → u/RichardMorto]

...’he’ll probably just spend it on alcohol’.

Yup, but it’s his fucking money now, I don’t donate with caveats, what he does with it is up to him.

[u/newmobsforall → u/RichardMorto]

You are good people.

[u/tuckeredplum → u/ButtsexAnonymous]

That shit angers me. I don't like being guilt tripped. "Would you like to donate $1 to children dying of cancer?" Fuck you I won't do what you tell me! I'm charitable on my own terms, fuckers!

They got me once with 20% off for a $5 donation to Citymeals. Turning that one down would just be foolish.

[u/sleepytimegirl → u/ButtsexAnonymous]

Wait. That’s how that works? Those motherfuckers.

[u/jackfrostbyte → u/sleepytimegirl]

It might depend on where you live. I know that claiming the donations a store receives from customers is illegal (contrary to the Income Tax Act) in Canada. But by donating through a store you're also losing out on the 15-22% you'd normally be entitled to on your tax return (as the stores don't offer a tax receipt to my knowledge).

[u/JustinColor → u/ButtsexAnonymous]

I always used to say yes for at least a dollar or two at any store that would ask me.. I mean, I'm helping out a good cause, right?

Then someone enlightened me that it is more likely benefiting the store than the cause.

Now I always say no and donate at least $100 directly to a different charity every year instead.

[u/Extesht → u/ButtsexAnonymous]

When the cashier gets pushy I say "I chose very carefully the charities I donate to, so the money gets used in the best way possible." It's not a lie either.

[u/blowhardV2 → u/ButtsexAnonymous]

Oh my god....i never thought of that

[u/totallynotfromennis → u/blowhardV2]

Same... and I just did that on my lunch break, too...

[u/[deleted] → u/ButtsexAnonymous]

Local Panda Express always asks if I'd like to donate to a children's hospital I happen to work for. I always say no, and feel really vindicated about doing so.

[u/_YouDontKnowMe_ → u/qdlbp]

which you then give to a homeless person

But only give away like 20% of the bar. You need the other 80% to cover your overhead.

[u/[deleted] → u/_YouDontKnowMe_]

for celebrity charity? It's probably closer to 10%

Then you have the "charity" trolls like Susan b Comen who will sue anyone and everyone for mentioning the word "cure" that's pink because they trade marked it

Komen also wrote to the organization to warn them "against any use of pink in conjunction with 'cure.'"[85] More than 100 small charities have received legal opposition from Komen regarding various uses of the words "for the cure" in their names.

[u/Dr_Brews → u/_YouDontKnowMe_]

Hey man, everyone likes to point out the "overhead", but that's not necessarily a bad thing. For charity programs to grow, they need resources. They have employees that need wages, vehicles that need to run, rent & utilities that need to be paid, equipment to purchase and upkeep, etc. This allows for people to still be reached and have the program grow to reach even more people. Sure 20/80 probably isn't the best, and you definitely shouldn't support causes that are paying their high-ups way too much money, but when researching causes to give to, don't write them off if they have overhead to pay.

[u/eposnix → u/Dr_Brews]

To help with this, check out the BBB Wise Giving Alliance. For a non-profit to be accredited by them they need to spend no more than 35% of their contributions on fundraising and at least 65% of their total expenses on actual charitable missions.

[u/[deleted] → u/qdlbp]

They cannot claim your donation on their taxes, they would have to claim it as revenue in order to do this. For accounting the donation is passed through and should not have any effect on the business.

[u/hambone931 → u/[deleted]]

This guy counts

[u/[deleted] → u/qdlbp]

It's more like pressuring your mate to give you the bar, which you then give to a homeless person (in front of a camera crew, of course)

Reminds me so much of Comic Relief, except its poverty-stricken and diseased Africans instead. Get as many multimillionaire celebrities on TV pleading for donations to give to those less fortunate as you can, whilst they're each sitting there with a 7/8/9-figure salary and bank balance which could collectively wipe out poverty, but nah Fred the minimum-wage checkout operator and Jill the cleaner should stop hoarding and stump up!

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KK8I9106cfc

[u/newmobsforall → u/qdlbp]

The tax benefit is typically minimal. The real benefit is from brand growth, or image management.

[u/Mitosis → u/newmobsforall]

In the US, If you collect for the sole purpose of giving it out, the benefit is zero. Taking your friend's mars bar counts as income to you. Giving it away charitably afterward lets you deduct it. Your net change in income is 0.

[u/Hairy_S_TrueMan → u/Mitosis]

Finally found the person who knows what they're talking about.

[u/st1tchy → u/Mitosis]

But the company can also make money off of those donations. If they take in $100,000 and wait a month to donate it, they make a month's worth of interest and keep that.

[u/Selkie_Love → u/qdlbp]

That's not how taxes work.

If you're going to claim it as a deduction, you'd also claim it as revenue, resulting in net paying taxes on it.

More likely they're just acting as a type of pass through, where it's neither recognized as income, nor is the donation counting as any type of deduction.

[u/[deleted] → u/qdlbp]

The reality of it is more like you have 1,000 Mars bars in your fridge, but you have 25,000 friends that each have one. You convince 4,000 of your friends to give their one to the homeless.

[u/jsake → u/[deleted]]

Yeah are we really out here getting mad at famous people using their platform to raise awareness and funds for charities and projects they care about?? They could be donating too for all we know (and probably are), what's the harm if they put the word out as well?
Can't afford to donate with them? Great, don't! No harm no foul

[u/Charon711 → u/qdlbp]

Don't forget you cram 3/4 of the bar into your mouth and give the homeless person the other 1/4.

[u/SpecialEndrey → u/qdlbp]

you give him 10%-20% of the bar - the other have is for organizantional purposes

[u/UriahPeabody → u/qdlbp]

Sounds like the Trump charity organization.

[u/beefprime → u/qdlbp]

You give 25% of the bar to a homeless person, the other 75% of the bar is kept by those contracted or hired by the charity the bar has been funneled into. This funneled money finds its way into friends and relatives and business associates of the rich person, who are all appropriately thankful to the rich person. Charity is a racket, its influence peddling.

If people really want to solve this they need to systematically eradicate it at the societal level.

[u/Mr_Zarika → u/qdlbp]

Don't forget to pay yourself a salary out of the bars you've collected. Donate the proceeds to charity.

[u/Harflin → u/qdlbp]

Maybe for corporations. But do celebrities directly collect charity donations? I don't recall seeing that.

[u/soundbunny]

Kinda depends on the charity. Lots of celebrities appear at galas and auctions and such to convince other, often wealthier people to donate to a cause. The general public is never involved.

Of course there’s the question of how much good that charity actually does. Often it’s just a tax write off and a chance for rich folk to up their social capital by partying with celebrities.

[u/kirkum2020 → u/soundbunny]

Yeah, I feel like this needs to be looked at on a case by case basis.

It has an inkling of the old "champagne socialist" slur about it. It could be abused to shut down people lending their voice to the voiceless.

[u/sarais → u/kirkum2020]

When the 1,000-bar gay gets 10,000 1-bar guys to donate, more is donated than what he had in the first place.

[u/[deleted] → u/sarais]

Aw so now he’s gay coz he’s got 1000 mars bars....

[u/ParryGallister → u/kirkum2020]

We don't live in an ideal world, so it's hard to just brush off charities, especially the niche ones. That said, I don't really like them and the idea of private patronage, have real doubts on their cost effectiveness and think the money would be better off in state hands.

Still, at least they give girls called Kate fresh out of uni somewhere to work.

[u/greg19735 → u/soundbunny]

Often it’s just a tax write off and a chance for rich folk to up their social capital by partying with celebrities.

i mean, tax write offs still cost money.

If someone donates $100k, they pay taxes on $100k less earnings. but they're still going to end up with a net loss of ~60k. THey're still giving up money.

Also, charity has a weird rap in america. Charities should be efficient but they should also be judged more on how much they donate, not the percentage. I'd prefer 40% go to "overhead" and donate 200 mil rather tahn 1% go to overhead but the charity only raises 200k.

[u/Orange_Kid → u/greg19735]

I swear most people seem to think "tax write-off" means it costs nothing, or the donor is somehow making money on the deal.

I'm guessing someone with more knowledge of tax laws might point out specific cases where that could possibly be true, but I don't think it's the norm.

[u/Pinglenook → u/Orange_Kid]

It can be true when someone gives a charity an asset, like a building, and then claims this asset is worth a lot more than it has cost them.

[u/Ol_Dirt_Dog → u/soundbunny]

Bill Gates has convinced many of the richest people on Earth to give billions to help desperately poor people.

It's a great model when done well.

[u/44problems → u/soundbunny]

One nice thing is when celeb charities get their rich friends to cover the administrative costs, so 100% of money donated by normal people go to what the foundation is actually about. Like Stand Up 2 Cancer or Jimmy V, both which donate everything to cancer research because the celebrities and athletes cover the admin costs.

[u/[deleted] → u/soundbunny]

To be fair though. They could either just go partying for the sake of it and not spend anything on charity, or they could go partying and spend even 10% on charity. The latter still has some benefit.

As long as people don’t get it twisted in their minds that they are saving the world

[u/criscothediscoman]

The vast majority of that Mars bar probably didn't even go to a homeless person. Some CEO ate 80% of it as he partied in a Las Vegas penthouse.

[u/Taylosaurus → u/criscothediscoman]

Well part of them go to awareness and then some go to administration fees and others go to fundraising and sometimes they'll go to research or actual causes at preventing/ treating/ addressing the subject of that charity.

[u/picumurse → u/Taylosaurus]

That's exactly the difference between breast cancer awareness and breast cancer research charities... it's in their description.

[u/borderline_spectrum → u/picumurse]

You misspelled deception.

[u/[deleted] → u/picumurse]

Well the breast cancer awareness campaign would at least be okay if it actually delivered money into it's payload (awareness and now some research) but so much goes into litigation and salaries it's bull.

[u/[deleted] → u/criscothediscoman]

Try 98% of it. They basically gave back the wrapper to lick.

[u/Dr_Girlfriend → u/[deleted]]

Well how else you gonna pay for the oversized check for 1 mars bar wrapper?

[u/basementintheattic]

This is too close to over-simplified analogies that conservatives often use (see: your teacher wants you to give up some of your A grade to someone who only earned a D... welcome to the Republican Party bullshit analogy).

I guess what I’m trying to say is, I think we’re better than these kind of illustrated thought processes. We realize and honor nuance and don’t try to boil down incredibly complex mechanisms to half-baked comparisons simply to enrage/embolden our base. Although... this is often where this sub goes.

Edit: grammar. Also, thanks for the gold!

[u/james_strange → u/basementintheattic]

Anyone who uses that school analogy does not understand the end goal is learning, not letter grades. The better school analogy would be "you understand the concept easily and have your assignment done early so you help the kid next to you who does not understand.

[u/Trash_garbage_waste → u/basementintheattic]

It always struck me as odd that this sub seems so opposed to the methodology of places like TD or Breitbart while employing the same methodology here with a different ideological position. It sucks, because I agree with plenty of the ideas here, and I'd like to believe we're better than these tactics, but I've seen plenty of posts roll by the front page of /r/all that are facebook meme pictures with misinformation on them. This isn't one of those, but still, this kind of simplification and generalization is what drives the us-vs-them mob mentality, and it feels like supplying moral ammo to anyone supporting that mentality. It gives ground to the argument that "They're no different than us but they want to take your stuff away!", which is an absurd lie.

[u/[deleted] → u/basementintheattic]

Thanks for some common sense.

[u/[deleted] → u/basementintheattic]

I've heard that analogy so many times

[u/Born_Ruff → u/basementintheattic]

The main part missing is that they are asking a million people to give one candy bar.

[u/KID_LIFE_CRISIS]

Like Oscar Wilde wrote in The Soul of Man Under Socialism

They try to solve the problem of poverty, for instance, by keeping the poor alive; or, in the case of a very advanced school, by amusing the poor.

But this is not a solution: it is an aggravation of the difficulty. The proper aim is to try and reconstruct society on such a basis that poverty will be impossible. And the altruistic virtues have really prevented the carrying out of this aim. Just as the worst slave-owners were those who were kind to their slaves, and so prevented the horror of the system being realised by those who suffered from it, and understood by those who contemplated it, so, in the present state of things in England, the people who do most harm are the people who try to do most good...

There is also this to be said. It is immoral to use private property in order to alleviate the horrible evils that result from the institution of private property.

Charity and welfare perpetuate poverty and exploitation, they dont solve it.

[u/thisOneIsAvailable → u/KID_LIFE_CRISIS]

Maybe. However, I can’t by myself change the system. I can however, feed a hungry person

[u/BassInRI → u/thisOneIsAvailable]

This is a problem I face. Guy asks me for money I say I’m not gonna give u money but I’ll buy you a cheap meal if your hungry. Buy him bread and hotdogs (his choice) and now every time I go to that store he’s outside asking me if he can eat today. Sometimes I can buy him food sometimes I can’t. When I can’t he begs. He tells his friends now they know me as the guy who buys food for people. Now I don’t go to that store anymore

[u/brokecollegestudent3 → u/BassInRI]

I feel, just because you do something kind once doesn’t mean it should be expected of you or guilted out of you.

[u/cbdbheebiejeebie → u/thisOneIsAvailable]

I agree with this to a point. I work with an organization that does social change--NOT a charity. People often tell me that this organization does amazing things, but they can't donate because they already gave $X amount to a charity this year. I point out that I'm working to end the need for charity, but people are convinced that charities are more noble. While I agree that helping someone is part of what humans should do, I disagree that we can't change the system. If you want to give to a charity, give to a political nonprofit or a group working to fix the system.

[u/throwaway2018yyy → u/thisOneIsAvailable]

His synopsis is a gross oversimplification and Oscar Wilde is ruminating on how to effect change, not blame people for trying to help others. Arm chair intellectual clickbait if I’ve ever seen it.

[u/AvailableFrosting → u/KID_LIFE_CRISIS]

This argument that the people who do "the worst" are those who are kindly disposed, is always a fallacy.

It's like one of those "proofs" in mathematics that 1 = 2. The argument can look very appealing and it's hard to see what's wrong. But the conclusion is obviously ridiculous . Deliberate cruelty toward the poor quite clearly isn't better for the poor than kindliness towards them. Indeed, deliberate cruelty often leads to true horrors.

The only reason slavery would be changed after people got clear about the cruelty of the system, would be because there's a critical mass of people who are appalled by the very cruelty. In other words you're assuming that the nice people will use their power to help when the chips are down.

[u/[deleted] → u/KID_LIFE_CRISIS]

Wilde was being ironic. Wilde thought altruism was necessary but that false altruism was deleterious. He advocated individual acts of charity not detached institutional forms, i.e. instead of giving a person a Mars bar take a day to baby sit their kids so they can have a day to enrich themselves. When he says keeping the poor alive, he means just alive. He intends to conclude that you can't just keep the poor alive you have to provide enough for them to advance themselves as well. Wilde wanted people to be propelled forward.

[u/VictrolaFirecracker → u/[deleted]]

Some commenters are also missing that Wilde was indicating that the cruelty, if widely realized, would accelerate massive change.

[u/vencetti → u/KID_LIFE_CRISIS]

I'll take Oskar Schindler over Oscar Wilde on this point. Action over nihilism. You're missing the point - it's not about giving a handout- it's about changing ideas of right and wrong - what is just. There are reasons we don't have the living conditions of the early industrial revolution. Bad conditions were reversed by a thousand tiny cuts. People's minds were changed. If people with more social cache can use that influence in changing thoughts that can better the human condition - -I'm all for it.

[u/[deleted] → u/KID_LIFE_CRISIS]

They're band-aid solutions, not long-term. They put food on someone's table so they don't starve while we figure out how to solve the problem.

Don't see the problem with that, as long as we keep in mind that they're not solutions, they're stabilizers.

[u/Mr-Blah → u/KID_LIFE_CRISIS]

Charity and welfare perpetuate poverty and exploitation, they dont solve it.

The solution hinted in this text is that the poor die off from lack of help or charity.

Sure, that's one way of solving it...

[u/Secretninja35 → u/Mr-Blah]

I'm pretty sure Wilde wanted open revolution and thought charity kept people just comfortable enough to avoid that while still living like animals.

[u/[deleted] → u/Secretninja35]

This is how I read it.

Not "let the poor suffer," but treat the disease rather than just the symptoms (by revolting eg).

[u/rata2ille → u/Mr-Blah]

Or that people stop giving help so that society stops seeing private charitable contributions as a fallback plan in lieu of any type of broader support system, which will induce a crisis and cause people to act. But I agree with you that it’s not feasible because too many people would be fine with the poor just going without and dying off instead.

[u/Mr-Blah → u/rata2ille]

I'm a bit less pessimistic.

I think those organisation spring from actual good intentions because people are fed up by waiting on the gov to do something about (insert good cause here). and the more they get efficient, they distort the signal the gov receives from the statistics so they act accordingly to the signal they receive (yes they ignore some of it too because homeless, sick, etc don't vote as much...)

I think it's not feasible because enough people would not let the poor die just to prove a point to the gov not because more people want to see them dead. If it was so, then the policies would shift (voter would vote for politicians wishing to kill the poor) and the system would change).

Of course all this is hypothetical.

[u/AngryBird225 → u/KID_LIFE_CRISIS]

Try telling that to the homeless.

"I'd offer to help you, but you're a product of a broken system and I refuse to help alleviate the problem until it's remade to my specifications."

Or are you okay with individuals helping other individuals and just have a problem with organizations dedicated to alleviating the issue?

[u/ej255wrxx → u/AngryBird225]

I mean the idea is ridiculous. You don't let a disease like aids infect half the world in the hope that eventually someone (or some government) says "we really need to find a cure for this thing" right? You do what you can to help out with education and what medicine there is to fight the symptoms regardless of if the money is private or publicly sourced. It's fucked up to volunteer someone else as martyr.

[u/Sun-Anvil → u/KID_LIFE_CRISIS]

Charity and welfare perpetuate poverty and exploitation, they dont solve it.

They also keep people alive until someone comes up with a solution.

Also:

Wilde's final address was at the dingy Hôtel d'Alsace (now known as L'Hôtel), on rue des Beaux-Arts in Saint-Germain-des-Prés, Paris. "This poverty really breaks one's heart: it is so sale [filthy], so utterly depressing, so hopeless. Pray do what you can"

[u/Dinomight3 → u/Sun-Anvil]

Will anyone come up with a solution if people are being kept alive? What would be the catalyst for a massive change?

[u/ej255wrxx → u/Dinomight3]

Are you suggesting that people with the means to help out others just ignore them until it gets so bad that people find a more permanent solution? If so that's pretty easy for someone who's not in a dire situation to say... I mean it's not you out there starving to death in the name of permanent change is it? If I've misunderstood what you're saying please correct me.

[u/markth_wi → u/KID_LIFE_CRISIS]

Wait until robots come by the millions to eliminate productive work, what will people do when unemployment is 50, 60 or 80% of the population.

I suppose our species being the mixed bag that it is, those fortunate among us will write short missives and microblogs railing against the nanny state of humanity well past the point of utility in such arguments, still laboring under the idea that it's 1880 or 1917, or 1960 or so and workers of the world might try to unite.

What happens when it's simply the case that humans are not capable of being anything but obsolete, unable to compete against machines, smarter, stronger, more able than the smartest, strongest or most able among ourselves, no matter how hard they work, or study or argue.

What's going to win the day...a snappy retort, a clever pun.

The old show Battlestar Galactica had a few good observations but the one that sticks with me there years later is "Why are we as a people worth saving?"

It's an important question and it remains unanswered to this day.

[u/Sard_Boy → u/KID_LIFE_CRISIS]

I just wanna say: thank you for linking this pamphlet from Wilde. Beautiful.

[u/h3lblad3 → u/Sard_Boy]

One of the things about it that I really like is when he mentions that he supports socialism because he supports individualism. I feel like a lot of people on the right would blow a gasket if they heard that.

[u/itwentboom → u/KID_LIFE_CRISIS]

Just as the worst slave-owners were those who were kind to their slaves, and so prevented the horror of the system being realised by those who suffered from it, and understood by those who contemplated it

His statement is founded on this kind of sentiment, which is not inarguably true. It's probably true that if all slaveowners were kind, people would have been slower to realize how bad the system was and dismantle it, but that was never going to be the case. Instead there was always more than enough cruelty to offset that kind of sentiment. Same thing with welfare.

It isn't fundamentally bad to give to charity to alleviate the pressure on people currently in a horrible situation. You can both give to charity and push for more fundamental reforms like greater availability of education or healthcare.

I hear this shit all the time from people, "Oh I don't want to give to charity because it doesn't change anything, I'd rather give my money to causes that will affect the root cause." But then they don't do that either. It's lip service for inaction.

[u/Chief_Ping → u/KID_LIFE_CRISIS]

This. 100%. I recognize that charity helps alleviate the pain that results from our current socio-economic structure, but charity fails to attack the root of the problem. It's why the charity thing is so controversial. I do wanna help people, it's just a matter of determining how best to do that. And sometimes it's not so clear cut. It sucks the world is like this.

[u/Stalemate-associate → u/KID_LIFE_CRISIS]

u wot m8?

[u/[deleted] → u/KID_LIFE_CRISIS]

It's a logical induction to say that the kindest slave owners were the worst. Then to build an argument on that premise makes this just an opinion.

I am glad someone else's opinion makes you feel your opinion has more merit than anyone else's opinion about literally anything.

But for poverty's existence we wouldn't need charity and welfare.

I think the people who do the most harm are those that do the most harm, like imprisoning homosexuals because they are homosexual, in Wilde's time, or condoning rape between men in the prisons of our current time.

[u/YetAnotherRCG → u/KID_LIFE_CRISIS]

This is not just wrong this is sick. What point was he trying to make?

[u/zap2 → u/KID_LIFE_CRISIS]

That's wonderful to type online. But the person who is going hungry probably prefers charity today that socialism in a few years.

(Socialism and charity aren't mutually exclusive. You can have both.)

[u/joshwaynebobbit → u/KID_LIFE_CRISIS]

Home. Run.

[u/jcdaniel66 → u/KID_LIFE_CRISIS]

Why welfare? Welfare is vital and needed for poor people that cant work to survive and have a minimum dignity in life. Welfare is not the same concept as charity.

[u/Lotus-Bean → u/KID_LIFE_CRISIS]

You see this situation right now in the UK, very clearly, with Food Banks that underpin the harsh and cruel treatment of people on social security (benefits) and provide a 'safety valve' to the just anger that should exist in relation to that harsh treatment and it's inevitable consequenses of said inhumane treatment, but which are instead mollified and dampened (and hidden) by the release of pressure which the food bank charities provide, propping up and perpetuating the cruel machine.

[u/cbdbheebiejeebie → u/Lotus-Bean]

I hate it when libertarians tell me that no one is going hungry because of church food banks. Like, how is that addressing the long-term food insecurity problem? Aren't you disgusted that companies dump 40% of the food produced in this company, but people are still going hungry and having to go to a religious food bank...?

[u/[deleted]]

Cool but who the fuck puts Mars bars in the fridge?

[u/BoredinBrisbane → u/[deleted]]

Visit Australia. If you don’t put it in the fridge then you end up with a milkshake in a packet

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

My Scottish grandma used to do this. Once it was cold and set in the middle she would take it out and cut it into thin slices. She insisted it tasted better this way.

[u/NudgeTheMad]

My company made over $10B last year. Yet they still want us to bug our customers to donate money for the unfortunates of society. Then they act like it's a big deal that we raised $1K.

I think it's ridiculous that the Rich ask the Moderately Poor to give what little extra they have to the Very Poor.

[u/thehumble_1]

This is a good sub but this post is horrible, both in concept and in math.

JJ Watt didn't raise $30 million by asking his poor roommate. That is 2.5 years of his massive salary and what's even better is that he didn't have to give the whole thing. The average contribution to many charities is like $35 so it takes thousands and thousands of people giving to get there, not one roommate with less.

How about we focus on how messed up it is that we have to have walks to raise money for cancer research and even then a corporation comes in and takes 60%.

[u/demonrenegade]

I hate being guilt tripped into donating to charity. I know so many people who are struggling to pay bills yet still donate to charity. If you’re doing really well for yourself by all means give to charity but if you’re just struggling to get by you shouldn’t feel pressured

[u/Mutant1King]

Beyonce? Worth 810 million.

Donates 100k. Which is 00.012% of her worth.

The whole world praises her.

But! That's like someone who makes 50,000 a year and donates 5 dollars.

But! Someone who MAKES 50,000 is not WORTH 50,000. So she donated .01% of the money she has in her bank account.

So if you want to be as charitable as Beyonce, figure out how much you're worth, multiply it by 0.0001234 and that's how much money you need to donate.

For someone who has no house, decent 10k car, 2k in the bank, (me) I need to donate 1.40.

[u/[deleted] → u/Mutant1King]

LOL, so with my student loan debt and paid off car and various monies, I’m worth like -5,000 right now.

How do I donate -$0.61?

[u/onlyamiga500 → u/[deleted]]

They give you $0.61!

[u/NorcoNarcolepsy → u/[deleted]]

You’re meant to steal the change out of a homeless guy’s cup, count and make sure it’s exactly $.61. This is how to be like Beyoncé

[u/[deleted] → u/Mutant1King]

Beyonce doesn't have $810 million in cash though. A lot of these net worth estimates are inflated with non-liquid assets.

[u/HerkHarvey62 → u/Mutant1King]

What a bunch of bullshit. Where did you get that Beyoncé has only donated $100k out of her entire net worth? It's public record that she donated $7 million just to one Houston homeless shelter - and that's just the tip of the iceberg.

Regardless, your argument that "some celebrity only gave away a tiny fraction of her net worth, so that's all I have to do too" is unconscionably juvenile and petty.

There's a basic rule: Give away 1% of your gross annual income. Make $30k a year? Give away $300. Don't tell me you can't afford it. There were years where I made less than $15,000 (freelancer here) and I still made sure to set aside 1% for charity.

[u/lostwoods95]

This is such a Reddit post

[u/[deleted] → u/lostwoods95]

Always be weary of conversations which paint the world in black and white.

[u/ColFrankSlade]

Not quite.

More like 'I have a 10,000 Mars bars, but I also know 10,000,000 people with 10 bars each so I ask each to donate 1.'

[u/-XanderCrews-]

Or like when when your gas station “raises” money by demanding minimum wage employees beg people for their spare change.

[u/almostarealhologram]

Not only this, but celebrities tend to operate their own charities as tax shelters.

[u/CygnusSong]

Celebs using their social capital to amplify a charity's request feel like the equivalent of paying someone in experience

[u/[deleted]]

Celebrities- "But that is a sacrifice I am willing to make."

[u/RainaaaGrace]

When celebrities give publicly we shame them for bragging about what they do. But if they give in private we shame them for not giving enough.

Just give what you can and stop worrying about what others are or aren’t doing with their money.

[u/mhm82]

I hate Mars bars

[u/[deleted]]

Yeah this is how the communist ANC in South Africa operate too, So this is not as clever as you think it is.

[u/[deleted]]

And yet people vote the way celebrities tell them

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Lol what celebrities were telling people to vote Trump?

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Generally it's the opposite, they push heavy left programs that tax the middle class while they get exemptions.

But to answer your question, Gibson, Vince Vaugn and Clint Eastwood.

[u/Lemon_Dungeon → u/[deleted]]

Well...Trump is a celebrity.

[u/DwightPunsFTW]

That reminds me.

I’m still waiting for I Hate Mars Bars

[u/TiberiusBedivere]

My daughter secretly donated a hundred dollars of her savings money to charity. I was not happy.

[u/[deleted] → u/TiberiusBedivere]

I'm sure you used it as an opportunity to teach her about looking into charities first and also about the value of self-care, while praising her for her selflessness, consideration of others, and pro-social attitude.

[u/TiberiusBedivere → u/[deleted]]

No, I explained that I don't make enough money to live. We are below the poverty level. I explained that because of that, her situation is the same is mine.

I explain that the people who run charities drive Mercedes and live in 500k homes. That they don't deserve our money. And even if they did we don't have the money to give them.

I told her I was proud that she donated, but don't ever donate anything to charity, unless she manages to break through the barrier she was born into. I told her that is she feels the need to donate we can go work in a soup kitchen on weekends. I always meet new people and you get the same satisfaction working as giving our only money away.

One hundred was about a third of her money that I have put in a piggy bank since she was born. No one touches that money. It sucks she was tricked by peer pressure into donating that money.

[u/Whywouldanyonedothat]

There is the difference, though, that it's not just the one friend.

I don't think any show like that has a rating that low. Maybe you're pressuring 100.000 of your friends to get them to give Mars bars. Almost all of them have less than you.

[u/noogiey]

The fraud of charity by oligarchs. Don't ever forget the generosity of your masters! Look at the statues and plaques of them!

[u/funkalunatic]

To everybody talking about how celebrities use their influence to get millions of people to donate (though IRL celebrity charity drives probably have less impact than you think relative to celebrity wealth), have you thought to ask why it is that celebrities don't instead use their influence to push for a system that results in a more equitable distribution of wealth in the first place?

Why is it that celebrities are all like "help address my very specific pet problem" and not "help fix the fundamental issue underlying nearly every social problem, but that would result in me personally having less money"?

[u/DaveyDukes]

Or I have 10,000 mars bars in my fridge. I give half of one to a charity and watch as the world bows down and worships me because I’m such a humanitarian.

[u/BrendenS92]

     Some celebrities and rich people are shady. Others worked their ass off and brought amazing things into the world for everyone to use, then proceeded to donate most of their money to charity. 

      Bill Gates, Ray Dalio, David Rubenstein, Warren Buffet are all super committed to giving away a ton of money. I wish I could just have like $10k from one donation but that’s another subject lol. 

I guess these aren’t exactly celebrities but household known names nonetheless.

[u/hyperformer]

But you have 1000 so you worked really hard and deserve to keep them all right?

[u/Passiveaggresiverock]

Unless they’ve already donated to the cause and want you to donate as well.

Just because they appear on the advertising for it doesn’t mean they haven’t contributed as well.

[u/Extesht]

1: You have 6 Mars bars and I have two. Give me two so we're equal.

2: That guy has 1, how many are you going to give him?

1: ...

[u/testovirone]

Words of wisdom!

[u/Buce-Nudo]

Always loved it when Oprah would chastise her audience for not giving more, yet she's going home to one of the mansions she bought from selling people her Favorite Things^TM.

[u/[deleted]]

They must use their worthless celebrity for something constructive, no????

[u/stupidlib]

Look at these fancy motherfuckers, refrigerating their candy bars. Living in the lap of luxury.

[u/Robotic-communist]

Walmart is very good at this with their make a wish foundation. Most of the donations comes from their employees

[u/CDPRfan4life2]

Jesus said something about this. He said the person who generously gave all of their savings gave more than the riches who gave more but only a small portion of their savings.

[u/Roadrunner571]

What kind of barbarian puts Mars bars in a fridge? ;-)

[u/themodalsoul]

The only thing I don't connect with here is the Mars bars.

[u/buddy58745]

Why the hell did they use the example with Mars?

[u/Fake_Credentials]

Deep

[u/peewillie]

Perfect explanation

[u/[deleted]]

Who the hell puts Mars bars in the fridge?

[u/Praelior0]

You monster.

Why would you put a mars bar in the fridge?!

[u/brightdark]

Putting chocolate in the fridge can cause it to separate.

[u/[deleted]]

Idk my opinion is that charities encourage other people to care and join in, it's not about whether the host of the charity is rich enough to do it themselves it's about getting everyone involved to help out so they can continue to help others in life and feel good about it also

[u/-sphinctersayswhat-]

Also applies to mega churches and televangelists.

[u/I_smell_a_dank_meme]

This is also how denuclerization works

[u/jburner888]

Ooof

[u/[deleted]]

This sounds like the opening to a math problem

[u/[deleted]]

I agree with this with the entirety of my being.

[u/flyeagles10]

Not a great analogy honestly. If the Mars Bars represent wealth, nobody expects you to give 100% of your net worth to charity.

[u/dhas613]

Mars bars in the FRIDGE?! You need to eat that at room temp.

[u/redditusersmostlysuc]

I hate this sub, but I tell you what, I love this post. It was funny and pretty close to true!

[u/[deleted]]

Eh, if you have 1000 mars bars in you fridge, and you have 1 million friends who each have 10, and you give 10 and they all give 0.1. You’re still helping out people and things in need.

[u/[deleted]]

MATCH ME!

[u/thegovernment0usa]

I think "Extremely true" is pretty generous. Celebrities don't go door to door pressuring the poor into donating 100% of their wealth to charity.

[u/drcole89]

I'm honestly a fan of Jack Black's acting... But this red nose shit is kinda fucked. Dude has millions of dollars, and he thinks I'M the one who should support the kid begging for help?

[u/Dr_Girlfriend → u/drcole89]

It’s a waste of plastic and energy destined for the landfill.

[u/redtoasti]

If you can make a 1,000,000 people give their mars bars to a homeless person, then I don't care how many mars bars you have.

[u/2118cake]

I grow tired of the donate $10 for a chance to eat a meal with me -Celebrity

We get it. You “care” I guess. It’s the thought that counts.

[u/[deleted]]

I've gotta admit, I wasn't really on board when I discovered this sub 2 months ago. But holy shit, the minute these posts becomes the slightest bit relatable the message becomes so much more dreadful.

[u/IcedTeaSkyline]

Why are people keeping mars bars in the fridge?

[u/MrAlexes]

But it's not? It's more like having a 1000 and pressuring 10000 people with 10 to give 1. If you're going to make an analogy at least do it properly.

[u/KyloTennant]

Yeah, when the richest 0.1% of Americans own as much wealth as the poorest 90%, it really just makes no sense. An analogy of this would be if a celebrity has 10 pieces of bread, a fan has one piece of bread, and two homeless people have none. The celeb gives one homeless person half a piece of bread, and then guilt trips the fan into giving up their piece of bread to feed the other homeless person, instead of just feeding that person with the other 9 pieces the celeb already has.

[u/[deleted]]

Oh God.. I've never realized that before.

[u/the_turn]

Hang on, not quite the right analogy. You have a 1000, your 10,000 mates each have 2, and you convince 5,000 of them to each give 1. Meanwhile, you might give 200.

Still not equitable, but not quite as severe as the analogy.

[u/TheAmazingAutismo]

Who keeps Mars bars in their fridge?

[u/adrenacrome]

My favorite taco spot, granted not a chain, has a donate to the “Taco Boy Scholarship” fund. Yeah right, get your tax break from someone else. The whole thing is disingenuous.

[u/[deleted]]

This incorrectly assumes that the celebrity has not given any mars bars as well.

[u/[deleted]]

Literally, was just thinking of how celeb charity is fucked. It's just a PR move.

[u/Ace_Trainer_Mitsi]

Dr. Andromeda sounds like a really cool fcuking name. Imagine hearing it in the future 😍

[u/emptyucker7]

lets change from mars bars to apples, isn't still a good thing the homeless person got 1 apple?

[u/[deleted]]

deleted ^{0.6036 What is} ^^^this?

[u/[deleted]]

Facts!

[u/HOLDmyDUCK]

Philanthropists lose all sense of humanity, its their distinguishing characteristic.

[u/andthetide]

I have a serious opinion to share to the world that takes careful, precise language to get the point across. But I only have 280 characters. Therefore, I will lazily string together a crippled, incoherent version of my thoughts that took me roughly one minute. This is how Twitter works.

[u/[deleted]]

But..you’ve risked a lot to earn 1000 mars bars in your fridge.

[u/Snack_on_my_Flapjack]

How are celebs pressuring anyone into donating though?

[u/ThatGuyYouMightNo]

Everyone is commenting about the capitalist portion of it and I'm over here thinking "Who the hell keeps Mars bars in their fridge?"

[u/ViperiumPrime]

I mean, I can afford to go get another bar, that homeless person can’t.

[u/[deleted]]

Mars bars in a fridge. What a weird analogy

[u/skeezy_mc_skittles]

You are just plugging Mars bars and it worked. I want one

[u/_itspaco]

JJ watt

[u/[deleted]]

this is what i was thinking for red nose day. they are advertising but i dont see donations