I was rather worried about how this blog would go, but it does seem to be at least half right.

Point 1- disagree.  I've worked in the non-profit sector.  there always seems to be more need than dollars to cover it, especially if we're taliing medical charities.  Saying "I've already donated" just means you're trying to do the minimum possible to salve your guilt and not trying to solve the problems the charities are trying to solve.

Point 3- disagree to a point.  As with all things involving pay, I don't think looking at percentages is entirely fair.  Back at that non-profit, we lost our best admin assistant because while she was doing not only her own work, but a lot of the work front line staff are supposed to be responsible for, she still couldn't negotiate a wage higher that the people whose time sheets she was completing / correcting.  Aside from the context of work, if 20% goes to fundraising, perhaps more donations given freely to lessen the need to directly raise funds would help.  It's all about context.

Points 2 and 4. Agree is taken togehter.  I've always felt that if half the energy spent compalaining about welfare was spent in a concious effort to get people off the system, we might actually eliminate the need for a safety net.  Sadly, just cutting a check is easier than getting one's hands dirty, so instead of our most skilled individuals running a mentoring program, we just subsidise people and wonder why things don't improve.  Aside from that, yeah, no matter how much cash you throw at a charity, it means nothing if no one stands up to do the work you're trying to pay for.

My counter arguments would be:

1) You already donate. True, but a lot of people are still left out in the cold. We have veterans paying out of pocket to care for war wounds, homeless families with nowhere to go, seniors choosing between food and medicine, adoptable pets being euthanized, etc. etc. A lot of us feel that the government is doling out tax money to the upper classes while leaving the truly needy behind. In my mind, the tax deduction for donations is way to dedicate some of my tax money to causes that actually deserve and need the funds.

2) Teach a man to fish. Those opposed to handouts can find many organizations that offer a hand up. But I would still argue that food banks, etc. are great causes.

3) Administrative overhead. I do wish charities would spend less on telemarketing, address labels, etc. But the fact is that any organization requires some administrative overhead. The idea is that your donation goes further because resources are pooled. Consider something like Second Harvest that distributes food that would otherwise go to waste. One person could never do something like that completely on their own, and even with admin overhead, they are providing meals at an extremely low cost.

4) Money is too easy. Due to the recession, a lot of charities are heavy on volunteers but short on monetary donations right now. Charities need both, so I would suggest dedicating money and time in accordance with your budget for both. Plus, it's not all that easy to donate money as compared with saving it or spending it on ourselves.

I can understand a struggling family not having the resources to donate to charity, but is there really a case to be made for someone who is well-off giving nothing?

Your article really hits a sore spot with me.  While I belive that some of your points are valid I have to say that you attitude really sucks.  There are many reasons people go to seek help, and like the republican candidate for president (Mccain) you apparently believe that the "fundementals of the economy" is doing great.  There are no jobs around in my area, I am not seeking a hand out as I am making due with what I can do for the time being.  I however know many people working as hard as they possibly can and not making enough to put any food on the table.  I am ill myself I may have cobra but my copays are to high so I am avoiding going to get seen at this time.  (I am told I have an autoimune disorder).  I am currently trying to get back in a truck (big rig) as I am a laid off truck driver.  I really could care less about what my dr says as I do not want a hand out either, but at the same time WHO else am I putting in danger when I go back on the road?  Do I want to go back on the road..NO.. but there is NO other jobs around!

A hard but important message that everyone who would contribute money should know! Nothing wrong with donating money, but remember the money isn't necessarily being spent on what you think. It's ok to ask how much is going to the cause and how much toward admin!  I myself recognize that admin is necessary but don't want the majority of my donation to fund it (i.e. salaries).  You can help in other ways.  Donate stuff to their thrift stores, go around and clean up your own neighborhood, assist an elderly neighbor with some yard work, buy a struggling college kid a text book, take some toiletries to a women's shelter and stuffed animals to a foster parent or a box of diapers to a new mom.  Write a letter to the manager of the store where you got fabulous service and help that person get a raise.  What ever your personal interest, there is a way to donate time and money of your choosing DIRECTLY to a recipient! My favorite-adopt an animal from the shelter and give it a fabulous home or help a struggling family keep their pets with cash donations.  We all help in our own way.

Wrong on all counts.  And I don't mean morally wrong, either, but factually so.  

1)  Yes, your tax dollars subsidize nonprofits, but subsidize =/= cover all costs.  In general, nonprofits still need extra funds.

2)  Do you actually have any numbers for "far too many"?  Exactly how many is that?  And exactly how much is "much longer"?  To be sure, complacency can be a problem.  But living in a shelter and getting fed at a soup kitchen is not really much of a life at all, and most people eventually realize that if they want more than a slice of baloney between two pieces of Wonderbread, they'll have to get it on their own.  

3)  Overhead is, sadly, necessary.  Let me put it this way:  would you donate to the ACS if they sent out a cheap 8x11" boring plain-text black-and-white newsletter?  No, you want to see smiling faces of chemo kids, and read testimonials in colored bubbles saying that thanks to some Brand New Treatment, someone's on the road to recovery.  I agree that sometimes this does go overboard, but you must consider that, like any other advertiser, a nonprofit is asking you to give money, but unlike a commercial interest, you get nothing (material) in return.  Yes, it would be nice if 100% of all donations could go towards the cause, but if you don't have someone running the place, how are you going to collect donations at all?  

4)  MOST charities actually prefer money.  It's one thing to volunteer to teach illiterate adults to read, it's another to actually know how to and do it in a way that will actually work.  If you have no idea how to teach, then you'd be better off donating money so that the organization can hire a good teacher.  Ditto for food banks.  They can buy tons more food in bulk for $1 than you can from Costco, and they know what foods they need (hint:  not tons of Cap'n Crunch).  And ultimately, charities need money to run.  Volunteer if you want, but don't think it'll make the same sort of difference as a cash donation.  

I don't agree with this. If someone is middle income or lower income then it may be better for them to put the money away for themselves for an emergency or rainy day. But if someone is rich, and especially really rich, buying another yacht or another rolls royce or blowing millions in a casino vs. giving money to charity? I hope no super rich people read your article and use it as an excuse to stop being charitable and flush it all down the toilet. As for volunteering, many people do not have time. Between working full time, caring for children, taking care of the house, any studies they may be doing... I know very few people who have an abundance of time on their hands they can dedicate to charity work. As for people who "abuse" the system rather than using charities to get on their feet, cutting off help is not the answer. Cutting off help to THOSE PEOPLE is the answer. Finally I would add that there are opportunities to give donations locally.

People need to really help themselves. Too many are on the government tit.

Donating money to worthy causes is never misguided.  I am glad to hear that I am actually giving more than I thought, as in the case of my taxes helping non-profit organizations run.  I also doubt you can teach a starving, sick child in a third world country to fish and that would solve their problem...same goes for abused women, children and animals who need monitary help just to survive.  I wish I were wealthy just so I could give more.

Many of the people I see live on a rollercaster,  when they work they blow it all and when out of work, they lose it all.  In most cases excluding a health melt down, people need to live under their means and plan for the rainy day that will happen. I am all for helping the truly needy but that number is small relative to the mass.

Kelly, while it was pooorly phrased, point two boils down to don't treat the symptoms, treat the disese.  Which would the food shleter prefer: supplies for a few months, or fewer people needing their services?  Which would a third world person prefer: a care package, or the ability to farm their own food?  Shelters for abused women are good.  Empowering women to be less finacialy (or mentally) dependant on abusive husbands is better.  The former will always be needed if the latter doesn't happen.  Sticking to the Ann Randian beleifs that everyone should pull themselves up by their own bootstraps just means we'll be forever paying for shelters and food banks for those that don't.

Charity will probably always be needed, but more effort needs to be put into lessening the need than just meeting the need.