Does Charity Donation do more harm than good?

This is very debatable quite honestly.

When people receive donations, they are always temporary. I've seen the slums of India before, and quite honestly, it seems like donations don't make much of any difference whatsoever. Sure, they may give a family a day's worth to eat, but in the end, they'll still be hungry. Donations don't give a society jobs, steady wealth, or economic diversity. When it comes down to it, societies survive based upon "the survival of the fittest", just as all animals do and humans did in [ancient] times.

Also, one should realize the Indian nation rarely ever does anything to help their slums alike, yet these donations go through them.

If one does not want to help their nation, how can others?

Another saying that you may have heard is, "Give a hungry man a fish to eat, and he'll still be hungry. Give a hungry man the knowledge to fish, and he'll never starve again."

I can understand your argument and also there is an argument that charity starts at home.

There are however lots of other issues here. OK in India and Ethiopia there are political reasons for the system perhaps, but perhaps if we never sent any aid over there the political leaders will do the same as they have always done. Their citizens who can will leave the country causing a mass migration to other countries - notably Europe - and these displaced people will then become a greater burden on the nation who takes them in. So some sid will allow these people to carry on with their lives in their countries - where they would prefer to be.

Behind the scenes the politicians can argue about the other issues of course.

And then there is the real biggie - can you sit in your nice comfortable, warm, home, eating your latest take away and watch people die for real on the TV screen and not want to help?

So yes you do have a point but there are other issues at work that we might not all be aware of

i'm not sure that maximum folk throw their exchange in the bin, or maybe I in simple terms stay in a damaging neighbourhood. i'm additionally not in settlement which you will desire to not provide to a set, the clarification human beings provide to collections is spontaneous felony accountability. If human beings did not provide this way then how many would get residing house and sense obliged to furnish to charity by ability of present help? very few I assume. And to be honest the main folk have a tendency to throw right into a set is 50p or so, the tax rebate on that's negligible and the form processing would fee extra desirable than the rebate exchange into extremely worth. So save giving, yet once you will get around to giving slightly larger quantities many times that contain present help - plenty the extra perfect - after which you will not sense accountable approximately ignoring that stressful tin shaker on the city.

These charities have been going for many many years now, we have given away vast amounts of our money from our coffers, it has made absolutely no difference, people are still dieing of starvation in Biafra, Basra, Ethiopia, Niger and many other nations have received our money are in just the same position as when the charities first started, we have given eight million pounds in aid to China just two years ago, just before they spent 29 billion pounds on the Olympic games, (although that was not from charity sources, it was given by our government) go figure that one, most of these charitiy fund raising campaigns by celebrities are just a way of keeping up their public profile so that we can admire them for being so giving, (Bob Geldoff comes to mind here, now a multi millionaire) A list actors and rock and pop stars that have personal fortunes of at least £100 million to £500 million each, they give up a little of their time to raise a many thousands of pounds for charitable causes, when they could, if they were really trying to raise money could dip into their own pockets and donate millions of pounds each and they would not even notice that it had gone and in fact, the interest on their vast remaining fortune would soon replace it, plus the money that they could give would be tax deductable but then, they would not have all of us thinking how great they all are, the free publicity would also not be there, there is one exception to this as far as celebrities go, Michael Schumacher has donated £50 million of his own money to various causes, I bet that not many people know about that, if he can do it, why cant all of the other multi millionaires and of course billionaires also.

All charities are run as a business, they have directors, managers, all on large saleries, office blocks, company cars and expenses that more than match our MPs, the bosses of charities never drive about in Ford Focuses or Renault Clio`s, they drive around in Mercedes, Jaguars, BMW's costing thirty or forty thousand pounds, their offices are decked out with plush carpets and high end expensive furniture, nothing cheap for our charity hero`s, they fly first class all over the world on fact finding holidays (sorry, Missions) they never think of travelling economy class and give the money saved to the fund, all in all, charity is big business, it raises money for saleries for thousands of employees, it pays large sums of money in taxes, it has a large property ownership and a widespread campaigning force, all of this is paid for with the money that you give to help others less fortunate than you, it does help the causes but it helps the charity business much much more.

Depends on the charity. Donating to an organization that assists soldiers has not downside

Hi,I totally agree with Greg,he answered it better than i would have,he has been there & seen what our money DONT DO!I will for sure vote for his answer...way to go Greg !... Aries love..

YES!

america should spend money on their own people

we are in a slum because we are sending so much money out of our economy to help other countries

some of these countries turn on us with the money we provided them!