w...

[kinked_a_bit]

x...

 

[ll74]

A week or so ago I was in a convenience store and the card swiper asked me if I'd like to "round up" and give the extra money to the American Heart Association.

I said no, as I was thinking "Hell no!"

See, I recently adopted two policies.

One is that I'm never again giving money to anyone just because they ask for it.
The second is that I'm never giving money to someone who has more money than I do.

Because really, what's do I get for my money? I get their permission to feel good about myself. I don't really need that. Do you? Besides, what about my obligation to my own household, family, and friends? Am I supposed to trade what I could do for them - in exchange for that permission?

And even though I implemented those policies a couple of years ago, it still got me thinking, and I realized that our entire society, as designed and shaped by the ruling class, is nothing more than a means to extract as much from the commoners as possible.

They want your money, your time, your compliance, and depending on what job you signed up for - your life itself if it further's their agenda of getting more.

You can see this in action all around you every single day, but nobody it teaching you to be aware of it or to try to resist it. So for the most part, you don't.

But consider, who's going to teach you? "They" control academia, news and entertainment, the legal system, the government, corporations - and yes, the "pseudo charities" that function more as tax free bank accounts than anything else.

So you're on your own. You have to figure it out yourself, or keep getting milked until you drop dead.

Stupid post. Nobody cares about who you give your money to.

 

[butters]

perhaps they (k.a.b) would be better off considering WHY these bodies are NEEDING to secure additional funding rather than being government-funded–aka 'by the people, for the people'?

 

[ll74]

The people constantly asking for it must care.

I'm sure the line is long.

 

[ll74]

I get that you want my attention, but I'm not interested. Goodbye.

Whatever works for ya. Maybe make a post about how you dont talk to homeless people so we can understand your approach on that

 

[KeithD]

This reminds me of my car dealer, which does this big campaign about the money they are (and therefore I would be) donating to charity if I buy a new car from them. Well, I have my own charities, and this money they are talking about is extra money they are going to charge me for them to get the credit and write off of contributing to a charity of their--not my--choosing. I have a lot of trouble figuring out where this benefits me in the slightest. I do contribute to charity and I don't need to do it through them.

 

[butters]

You seem to think it might have something to do with causes or needs. I've known people in the charity business. I've got a pretty clear understanding on the "why" of it.

i worked in the charity sector for nearly 10 years, in the UK. Yes, there's often a failure or deliberate obfuscation in disclosing exactly how much money of the monies donated actually go towards the causes they've been donated for. It's something i actively disapprove of and took what steps i was able to bring that to the public's attention in both outlet voluntary and managerial positions.

in the USA, there are many more bodies requesting public funding due to them not being financed by their local governments. If ANY of these charities were sufficiently funded, combined with it being mandatory they actually use the majority of said funds for the purpose given, there would be a lot less appealing for money. In fact, the bulk of the faux charities would likely stop functioning altogether as they can't make enough money for the owners, or be written off as tax-loss entities by the uber-wealthy. Which would be a good thing, as they'd be replaced by those charities ACTUALLY doing the lifting. In the UK, there was a public outcry when it first came to the general population's awareness that anyone can register to start a charity so long as they donate 2% of all generated money towards the actual purpose declared to the public. Just 2%. Other, well-known companies (charities) made it look like they spent ALL generated wealth on their causes, or 90% or so. The truth was that figure was derived from a portion of the monies AFTER a whole lot else was allocated elsewhere, sometimes for rental housing and/or services that charged highly inflated prices.

having said that, there is NOTHING forcing you to give 'just to allow you to feel good about yourself'. you either donate, or you don't. The staff at the point of sale, or the actual payment machine's generated ask, is a matter of them being requested to ask that... the register workers often HATE having to do so but it's all part of their job. Feeling bad about not donating is down to the individual; it's not something the question can force you to feel and i'd suggest you inform yourself well enough on ANY body you might choose to donate to. The decisions and reasons for those are yours... i certainly don't ever feel embarrassed or shame for refusing because i have free will and the ability to be informed.

 

[butters]

It's actually making me laugh that most of the responses are from those upset that some serf doesn't know his place and isn't following the brainwashing anymore.

But congratulations for making a living off the donations of others... even if only for a while. No doubt you were "one of the good guys." No doubt at all.

And just for the record, using the power of government to confiscate money from the unwilling, for the personal use of the ungrateful - ennobles no one.

i'm not upset. odd you should think that. i'm simply attempting to inform you of reasons why your OP is kinda silly.

i made no money... working as a volunteer isn't paid, it's giving my time and labour for free. as an assistant mngr and then actual manager, i made a basic wage for a lot of work, because at least SOME of the proceeds went where it was meant to, plus i cut down on a lot of wasted physical donations by getting them to people who needed them rather than being thrown out in the garbage (due to company sales policies) or designated as 'rags' when they were not as rags brought in a certain level of income for the companies and that level was supposed to increase along with increased donated goods. I'd steer donors to places that would actually accept their goods and sell them or distribute them while, at the same time found that encouraged them to bring the better items to our stores. Throwing good donations out as trash in order to make a shop look more upmarket, yet denying those same trashed items to dumpster divers, is immoral.

using the power of government to confiscate money from the unwilling, for the personal use of the ungrateful - ennobles no one.

ohhh, i see where you're coming from. just grievance porn. gotcha. i won't need reminding not to reply to your trash. thnx

 

[pecksniff]

And even though I implemented those policies a couple of years ago, it still got me thinking, and I realized that our entire society, as designed and shaped by the ruling class, is nothing more than a means to extract as much from the commoners as possible.

Whenever you think along those lines, keep in mind who the ruling class is -- people who live in the Hamptons, work on Wall Street, and give orders to Washington.

 

[Chernosoth]

I try to avoid businesses that do cashier charities, but which charities are in on that unethical practice is too much to remember. I expect all the big ones will disappear and be replaced by community organizations that use their funds more effectively and more directly. I may eventually join one.