This is probably a silly question, but : Why do charities need money?

Question

Example : an OAP gives her last 10p to Oxfam so that they can provide food and clothing for the needy. Oxfam presumably have to give a great deal of their money to oil companies to pay for transportation costs. So the OAP has effectively given her money to the oil companies, most of which are making several BILLION pounds of profit every year.

Does this logic stand up, or not? By giving to charity we are effectively giving to oil companies? Shouldn't the oil companies charge NOTHING to charities?

Any thoughts appreciated.

Answer 1

I work for a charity. We have to pay everything we need - stationery, phone bills, electricity, rates etc at the market price. I dont think we get discounts cos the people we buy from are businesses and they want to make a profit.
We also have paid staff, who are specialists in what they do.
We also have volunteers, and its only fair to pay them their expenses for petrol etc.
We also have to pay for publications, subscriptions to relevant organisations we're affiliated with etc.
Personally I dont shop at oxfam since they did the new corporate colour scheme and matching plastic bags - and the prices went so high in our local shop that stuff was cheaper in the discount shops! I dont think charities should waste money going 'upmarket' like that, its not necessary.
We dont get many funds from the public - we have to bid for them from grant funds, lottery etc. So every year our position is very precarious, one day we may just disappear in a puff of beaurocracy (could never spell that!)

Answer 2

Of course some of the money that charities raise goes into salaries, the cost of premises, transportation etc. etc. And if all of it did, then of course the charity would either be pointless or crooked. There is normally no way to avoid these costs. However, reputable charities try to keep these overheads to a minimum and get most of the money they collect to where it is needed. So by giving money to charities, yes, we are giving some of it to oil companies, but hopefully only a very small proportion.

It is worth pointing out, too, that many companies do provide their services free on occasion. Obviously they can't do that all the time as they would go out of business, which would help no-one!

Answer 3

You are right.

However, the vehicles which provide the transport of goods for oxfam (charities) are owned by private individuals who need a source of income to avoid and prevent poverty.

This way we help to keep jobs where they are needed most. May be we should ask the oil firms to contribute more to charitable causes. Failure to give to charities creates an even greater problem necessitating more funds. Let us give to accountable charities more generously. Some people's lives could be changed forever.

Answer 4

I'm not sure exactly what Oxfam is.

Companies often contribute to charity, but they only contribute so much. My former employer often donated a certain amount to the United Way every year. After that, if their goods are needed, they must be purchased. Charities do this. They take money from many donors and buy necessary supplies for the needy that they've chosen to serve.

Answer 5

Its a ridiculous argument. If we all gave 10 p to Oxfam then they have money for all costs and loads left over to provide charitable aid.

Your focus is too narrow.

Next you'll want them to turn the lights out in their shops so as not to waste money on electricity.

Oxfam are a brilliant charity - and as said above - The Salvation Army is a superb charity too.

Answer 6

Your question implies that you think everyone who supplies goods or services to a charity should do so for nothing.

Suppose you are looking for a job. You mention this to a charity that needs your skills. Would you work for them for nothing? If not, why not?

There is no compulsion to donate to charity. Most companies that make profits do make donations. And they often find that the most efficient way of donating is to provide free goods or services but, no, this should not be compulsory. It should be left to the individual to decide how much they want to give.

If you want compulsion then why not just put up the rate of income tax and allow the government to distribute the extra revenue to charities?

Answer 7

Metropolitan elements in many circumstances have homeless shelters the position you'll get a warm meal, a bath and a cot to sleep on. some shelters have pastime placement information besides. Many church homes have outreach ministries also, so that you may contact them and clarify your circumstances and they'd furnish information. church homes are truly efficient in small communities the position there are not any homeless shelters accessible. some cities have "day labor" stations the position homeless and others assemble to artwork for an afternoon's pay. you're frequently paid earnings those circumstances and that ought to a minimum of fill your abdomen for yet another day. there are quite some possibilities. you have to be inventive sufficient to seek them out.

Answer 8

there are two kinds of charitable firms by large

one is an NGO - non governmetal organisations ....

then many big companies have social wing.... its like considered important by them to give a part of their profit to people they make work or spend or society at large
so one company keeps X amount of budget for people but expenditute is more than that so then they look for charitable functions auctions raffle tickets to generate more fund...

and NGO itself only works on funds provided by companies and people at large.... they have marginal business model....to make any profit itself

Answer 9

Most charities receive free transportation etc therefore allowing for the majority of their money to be spent where its needed.

Answer 10

confused
don't think giving to verified charities have anything to do with oil companies