On phone calls I always ask, how much of your income goes to the work of your charity and how much is overhead. This often gets them to quickly hang up, and not call back.
Financial giving is a way of outsourcing incarnational Christianity and is thus a perversion of it. Instead of being incarnational, we pay somebody else to be so. This is dehumanising and destroys the link between giver and beneficiary.
Keep yer GD mites, widow! Yer perverting Me-anity!
Keep yer GD mites, widow! Yer perverting Me-anity!
At least she was giving directly to the organisation putting the gift to use and that she was immediately familiar with, not some professional fundraising intermediary putting her on a guild trip via direct mail.
Financial giving is a way of outsourcing incarnational Christianity and is thus a perversion of it. Instead of being incarnational, we pay somebody else to be so. This is dehumanising and destroys the link between giver and beneficiary.
Giving based on guilt leverages legalism. 2 Corinthians 9:7 says "Each of you should give what you have decided in your heart to give, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver" (New Living Translation).
I often wonder what the landscape of Christian missions and charities would look like if it were somehow possible to cease legalistic guilt-motivated giving and replace it with grace-motivated giving.
If grace-motivated giving were enough, there would be no need for anything else. The fact that it isn't enough likely means it will never be.
Those in need love a giver, regardless of motivation.
Sanctimonious bollocks. People in need are perfectly capable of being ungrateful, or of feeling patronised or insulted by a giver. People in need have been known to refuse gifts where the giver is seeking to use it to polish the turd that is their own reputation.
Fuck off. The point is that the type of giving Euty proscribes is not fucking enough. Sanctimonious is implying that proper motivation is more important than actually helping people.
I've worked in charity and there is never enough money. You take what you are given whatever the motivation and use it to help.
Fuck condition or wishes. You help or you don't. The rest doesn't matter.
Keep yer GD mites, widow! Yer perverting Me-anity!
At least she was giving directly to the organisation putting the gift to use and that she was immediately familiar with, not some professional fundraising intermediary putting her on a guild trip via direct mail.
Don't start making excuses for her now. Financial giving is perverse! Dehumanising!
As I understand, the charity running the shop may not make much monetarily for their cause, but they're providing inexpensive clothing and other goods to those in need. When I donate something, I feel that the charity might make a little bit of money, another person will be able to make use of something I no longer want or need, and it's better than sending something to the landfill (and I have a bit more room in my closet!).
Keep yer GD mites, widow! Yer perverting Me-anity!
At least she was giving directly to the organisation putting the gift to use and that she was immediately familiar with, not some professional fundraising intermediary putting her on a guild trip via direct mail.
Don't start making excuses for her now. Financial giving is perverse! Dehumanising!
I sense a goalpost move here. And @Eutychus, I knew a single mom with 4 kids who was told by the school that she needed to spend more time with each child every night, and when she laid out to them what her schedule looked like and asked when she would fit it in, they were silent. It's best to be silent about things one knows nothing about. I do know about this. Not everybody here does.
I just started sending them back their reply forms, asking politely to be taken off their lists. I've done the same thing with mail order catalogues. Both have been successful. I'm sure I've saved several acres of trees.
I think I'll try this. My mailbox becomes quickly stuffed with junk mail.
Where is Midsomer Murders when you need them. I remember the scene in one episode was a donkey refuge for elderly and infirm donkeys. The sidekick was obliged to put something in collection box every time the detectives visited.
Your suggestion that single mums are incapable of charitable actions because they haven't the time is demeaning to single mums and a misappraisal of what constitutes a decent charitable action. I could cite examples from two of my closest friends who are single mums but you've already decided you know more about the subject than me.
My statement that financial giving is perverse and dehumanising was hyperbole and it was that way from the start. If I qualify it by saying I was referring to modern-day, industrialised giving, which I do believe has many perverse effects, its so-called effectiveness being inversely proportional to the extent it allows giving as outlined by Paul in Corinthians, you'll say I'm moving the goalposts. Oh, you already did.
There is no hyperbole font. If someone says something stupid then walks it back with "oh it was just hyperbole honest" then that is, in fact, moving the goalposts.
Your knowing any number of single moms who have time to volunteer is not proof that they all do. That's the worst kind of substituting anecdote for data, because it shames people who are doing the best they can. It takes but one counterexample to prove
a universal claim. That's not called knowing more than you. It's called understanding logic better than you. Which clearly I do.
As I understand, the charity running the shop may not make much monetarily for their cause, but they're providing inexpensive clothing and other goods to those in need. When I donate something, I feel that the charity might make a little bit of money, another person will be able to make use of something I no longer want or need, and it's better than sending something to the landfill (and I have a bit more room in my closet!).
I'm a Trustee of a charity which works exactly like this: its prime aims are to provide those inexpensive goods etc. and to provide a meeting place in a deprived area. The money that comes in via sales and donations pays the rent for the shop premises and other running costs. We may have a surplus some months which can be disbursed for other causes, but not often.
Again, the giving mode you suggest doesn't work. Is it better that people struggle and starve?
No, but that doesn't mean pointing out the drawbacks of the current giving mode is prohibited. Personally, I think it's reaching its limits. The Notre Dame fire brought in millions in minutes - with adverse knock-on effects on more deserving and more human-centric but less media-sexy charities.
Also, my complaint is with Christian appeals for giving in particular, because we have some pretty explicit standards laid out in the Bible which many of them seem to seek to undermine deliberately. I've already cited one which I think has sold its soul.
[quote="Eutychus;c-216380"
Also, my complaint is with Christian appeals for giving in particular, because we have some pretty explicit standards laid out in the Bible which many of them seem to seek to undermine deliberately. I've already cited one which I think has sold its soul. [/quote] Some years ago a worthy cause in my denomination hired a professional fund-raising organisation to make an appeal. It was one of those where the CEO writes you an allegedly "personal" letter with sections supposedly underlined by hand, together with other promotional material.
It may have succeeded in raising the profile of the organisation ... but it also annoyed many long-term supporters and, in financial terms, cost more than it raised (or so I believe).
As I understand it, a charity shop must sell mainly donated goods to maintain its charitable purpose status.
I'm not sure what this has to do with what I wrote, but charity shops in the UK are trading subsidiaries because most charities cannot engage directly in trading activities.
The point is supposed to be that the trading company donates all profits to the charity.
The issue that you highlight is about the payment of business rates, where charity shops often, but not always, get relief.
But there is a moral issue here too - if the charity shop is making money only because a) it is not paying rent b) it is not paying rates c) it is not paying for the majority of the stock d) it is not paying for the majority of the labour then in at least one sense the whole of society is subsidising them to make little or no profit.
If in the process they destroy other existing (for example) second hand bookshops, then there are legitimate questions about whether the benefits they bring are really worthwhile overall.
Of course the counter argument is that with the collapse of trading on many British high streets whether there would be much trading at all without them.
Brand is huge. Branding works. And, yes, cynicism is a problem.
Define "works". The view of some is that it doesn't really.
Financial giving is a way of outsourcing incarnational Christianity and is thus a perversion of it. Instead of being incarnational, we pay somebody else to be so. This is dehumanising and destroys the link between giver and beneficiary.
Boy this goes against 2000 years of Christian teachings. So instead of giving money, you would have people with families, and who work 50 hours a week, do what? volunteer at a food bank? What about a single mom, she just doesn't get to be charitable at all? Absurd.
I think there are two sides to this. On the one side, money *can* be much more effective than donations or volunteers.
It would take a whole lot of effort to collect, sort and ship used laptops to schools in developing countries. In some circumstances, the costs of international and local shipping might be quite high (which it usually is to send random things in bulk in that direction) and it usually is much more cost effective to collect money and buy new laptops in bulk from the manufacturer. The schools get new laptops rather than someone else's leftovers.
This is just an example, the principle is the same for many things that are often collected to send abroad after disasters etc.
On the other side, there is certainly a level of hands-off-ishness that can occur when people use money rather than themselves.
Locally to me, a community group is trying to raise interest in a project in order to apply for lottery money. The grant authorities say that yet can't even apply without showing significant local engagement. But one wonders if it might be more effective to do the thing themselves rather than going a convoluted route to apply for funds to get someone else to do it.
That balance between what a local [religious] community can do and what it can or should raise money for others to do is hard to work out, I think.
Locally to me, a community group is trying to raise interest in a project in order to apply for lottery money.
Don't even get me started on this abomination. It is widely agreed that lotteries are a tax on the poor, predicated on a false hope of instant wealth. Now France is congratulating itself on privatising its national lottery, creating a new class of capitalistic, not-so-poor shareholder in taxation on the poor. How this relates to charity is beyond me.
I'm not sure what this has to do with what I wrote, but charity shops in the UK are trading subsidiaries because most charities cannot engage directly in trading activities.
Yes. WE had a tough time convincing the Charity Commission that, in our case, the charitable activity was largely the supply of cheaper clothes etc. to needy people. We have to keep a close eye out for folk who may be dealers or middle-class bargain-hunters.
Keep yer GD mites, widow! Yer perverting Me-anity!
At least she was giving directly to the organisation putting the gift to use and that she was immediately familiar with, not some professional fundraising intermediary putting her on a guild trip via direct mail.
Where does money being raised for the Jerusalem church lie on this spectrum ? I assume many of those people would have been unlikely to visit Jerusalem and so were being asked for money by an intermediary.
[Incidentally, if you read the story with anything less than charitable motives, it sounds rather like a kick back of some kind].
@chrisstiles inasmuch as our local church has a policy and inasmuch as it's inspired by the passages in Corinthians:
- we don't preach tithing in any shape or form
- our aim is to give financial support as directly as possible to organisations or individuals we know on site for whom there is the possibility of some direct accountability
There was at least some personal link with the Jerusalem church via the apostles, and they made sure the funds travelled with people personally known to them.
My statement that financial giving is perverse and dehumanising was hyperbole and it was that way from the start. If I qualify it by saying I was referring to modern-day, industrialised giving, which I do believe has many perverse effects, its so-called effectiveness being inversely proportional to the extent it allows giving as outlined by Paul in Corinthians, you'll say I'm moving the goalposts. Oh, you already did.
Of course you can't admit that you were wrong, or even that you mistakenly said something you don't actually believe - it has to be "hyperbole", and it's somehow our fault for not recognizing it.
This is just so much sanctimonious bullshit. No one should be terribly concerned about whether or not their financial giving meets your criteria of artisanal purity.
When I give money to MSF, I expect actual doctors trained in medical procedures to do the operations. Sure, I could retrain as a medical doctor and volunteer myself after graduation, but by that time I'll be hitting 60.
As I understand it, a charity shop must sell mainly donated goods to maintain its charitable purpose status.
I'm not sure what this has to do with what I wrote, but charity shops in the UK are trading subsidiaries because most charities cannot engage directly in trading activities.
The point is supposed to be that the trading company donates all profits to the charity.
The issue that you highlight is about the payment of business rates, where charity shops often, but not always, get relief.
But there is a moral issue here too - if the charity shop is making money only because a) it is not paying rent b) it is not paying rates c) it is not paying for the majority of the stock d) it is not paying for the majority of the labour then in at least one sense the whole of society is subsidising them to make little or no profit.
Not sure why society subsidising them is a moral issue. We, nominally at least, live in a society that claims to care about other people. Well,I suppose there is a moral issue here in that we should be helping people without charity needing to be a recourse. However, we do not, so any help is good.
If in the process they destroy other existing (for example) second hand bookshops, then there are legitimate questions about whether the benefits they bring are really worthwhile overall.
Of course the counter argument is that with the collapse of trading on many British high streets whether there would be much trading at all without them.
If charity shops disappeared, it would not save the high street merchants. Brick and mortar shopping is in decline, more is the pity.
Brand is huge. Branding works. And, yes, cynicism is a problem.
Define "works". The view of some is that it doesn't really.
If you come to my door for donations to Blahblah's Home for Wayward Field-mice, I will likely not give you money despite my concern for the welfare of field-mice. Because I've never heard of you.
Charity shops are a visible advert of demonstrable action. If I see a Blahblah's Home for Wayward Field-mice Charity Shops on the high street and in shopping centres, I am more likely to consider you legitimate.
Branding psychology for charity might have superficially different tactics, but the overall conditioning underlying it is the same for any type of product.
Not sure why society subsidising them is a moral issue. We, nominally at least, live in a society that claims to care about other people. Well,I suppose there is a moral issue here in that we should be helping people without charity needing to be a recourse. However, we do not, so any help is good.
Because charity shops are not trading on the same level playing field as everyone else. As I explained.
So if they are not even making much or any money from these activities then the rest of society is entitled to ask whether they really want to grant these advantages to these kinds of enterprises and the costs of doing that.
If charity shops disappeared, it would not save the high street merchants. Brick and mortar shopping is in decline, more is the pity.
And you know this how? You have specialist knowledge about the economics of second hand bookshops do you?
If you come to my door for donations to Blahblah's Home for Wayward Field-mice, I will likely not give you money despite my concern for the welfare of field-mice. Because I've never heard of you.
Charity shops are a visible advert of demonstrable action. If I see a Blahblah's Home for Wayward Field-mice Charity Shops on the high street and in shopping centres, I am more likely to consider you legitimate.
Branding psychology for charity might have superficially different tactics, but the overall conditioning underlying it is the same for any type of product.
That might be your perception but that seems to be worth very little. Many large charities have no charity shops.
All forms of charity marketing are a choice.
And it is an entirely legitimate activity to discuss the merits and morality of one over another.
If you want to continue talking ignorant drivel, maybe keep it to yourself?
I tell all the phone callers that I do not give to charities that solicit over the phone. I consider myself very brave for saying that to the guy who sounds like Broderick Crawford and asks for money for our brave police force.
I told one of the phone solicitors that I didn't want to be bothered by telephone, but that I kept all solicitations of funds by mail for consideration next time I reviewed my regular charitable donations. He told me that they'd stopped sending out mailers because they didn't get much response. I told him that that was obviously his charity's choice, but that I wasn't going to encourage him disturbing my time at home by giving him anything, and that this was a policy that was independent of the merits of his particular charity.
I think there are two sides to this. On the one side, money *can* be much more effective than donations or volunteers.
It would take a whole lot of effort to collect, sort and ship used laptops to schools in developing countries. In some circumstances, the costs of international and local shipping might be quite high (which it usually is to send random things in bulk in that direction) and it usually is much more cost effective to collect money and buy new laptops in bulk from the manufacturer. The schools get new laptops rather than someone else's leftovers.
Our local food bank accepts donations of food. Our church collects donations for them, and we have a few members that buy a few extra things with their weekly shop and faithfully bring them in on a Sunday.
Which is great and all, except that the food bank also has bulk purchase agreements with various companies in the food industry, and can buy food for much less money than individuals can, so you do much better to give the food bank $10 rather than taking your $10 to the store and buying pasta for them.
And yet the food bank encourages people to buy food and donate it, because they know that a lot of people will donate a couple of extra tins of something, but won't actually donate money.
On phone calls I always ask, how much of your income goes to the work of your charity and how much is overhead. This often gets them to quickly hang up, and not call back.
What would an acceptable answer be?
80% would be my cut off point. One person told me 10%. The ones I choose to give to at the moment are 90 to 95%. Some have endowments to cover overhead, others are small and local.
We have to keep a close eye out for folk who may be dealers or middle-class bargain-hunters.
Why? Do you run out of clothes? If not, then why do you care who buys?
Because the declared "charitable aim" of the shop, as agreed by the Charity Commission, is to provide services and "stuff" for a particular constituency.
Not sure why society subsidising them is a moral issue. We, nominally at least, live in a society that claims to care about other people. Well,I suppose there is a moral issue here in that we should be helping people without charity needing to be a recourse. However, we do not, so any help is good.
Because charity shops are not trading on the same level playing field as everyone else. As I explained.
So if they are not even making much or any money from these activities then the rest of society is entitled to ask whether they really want to grant these advantages to these kinds of enterprises and the costs of doing that.
Since they are not hugely profitable, they would then not be allowed to make any money? Nice.
You have specialist knowledge about the economics of second hand bookshops do you?
If second-hand bookshops were in threat from charity shops, then their business model would be in trouble. Fortunately, it isn't. Again with the reading and actual information, I know, the nerve I have.
If you come to my door for donations to Blahblah's Home for Wayward Field-mice, I will likely not give you money despite my concern for the welfare of field-mice. Because I've never heard of you.
Charity shops are a visible advert of demonstrable action. If I see a Blahblah's Home for Wayward Field-mice Charity Shops on the high street and in shopping centres, I am more likely to consider you legitimate.
Branding psychology for charity might have superficially different tactics, but the overall conditioning underlying it is the same for any type of product.
That might be your perception but that seems to be worth very little.
Nice. Because your statements are gold star research? Branding works, it is an integral part of marketing; an industry worth billions. Too bad for all those companies paying for it that they do not have your wisdom.
I do remember that, some years ago, Unicef opened a chain of quite "upmarket" shops which, as I recall, sold gifts and cards but not second-hand items. They can't have done well as they soon closed.
Ok, yeah. What do booksellers know? They are only the people running independent bookshops.
Tim Godfray, chief executive of the Booksellers Association, said:
“Trading conditions for high street retail booksellers are extremely tough in the current climate and unfair competition from charity bookshops is
something our members do not need. If we are serious about protecting retail diversity on the high street, we need to review the strong tax and
rate concessions given to charities who run shops. If a charity shop sells new goods, why should it benefit from tax and business rate concessions?
But hey, some ignoramus on the internet disagrees! So it can't be true!
You do realise that the two things can be true at the same time right?
I'm sorry if this conversation is too complicated for you, but as I said, I did actually work in charity retail.
Oh, how precious.
The competition for retail booksellers is mainly from Amazon. Gadfrey is talking about the entire market which includes new, but you began this talking about second-and shops.
Goalpost shifted.
You do realise that the two things can be true at the same time right?
I'm sorry if this conversation is too complicated for you, but as I said, I did actually work in charity retail.
Oh, how precious.
The competition for retail booksellers is mainly from Amazon. Gadfrey is talking about the entire market which includes new, but you began this talking about second-and shops.
Goalpost shifted.
Yeah, the great brain has spoken!
Charity shops don't affect other independent businesses - because lo! the total market for second-hand books doth increase year-on-year!
The fact that many charity shops don't pay rates or rent has nothing to do with the difficulties of other small independents selling the same thing.
You've hearby discovered a new branch of economics - whereby a business with lower overheads has zero impact on nearby competing businesses selling the same thing.
When can we expect to hear about the Nobel prize and the personal chair at Cambridge, oh masterful one?
You do realise that the two things can be true at the same time right?
I'm sorry if this conversation is too complicated for you, but as I said, I did actually work in charity retail.
Oh, how precious.
The competition for retail booksellers is mainly from Amazon. Gadfrey is talking about the entire market which includes new, but you began this talking about second-and shops.
Goalpost shifted.
Yeah, the great brain has spoken!
Charity shops don't affect other independent businesses - because lo! the total market for second-hand books doth increase year-on-year!
Every business has an effect on other business selling the same thing.
Fairly obviously the market price for something that has no inherent value is determined by the place that has the lowest overheads.
Competing businesses can try to go lower on price but that's always going to be next to impossible if the competitor is not paying rates or rent and pays very little for labour.
Ultimately the place with the lower overheads has all of the advantages and can ride out trading conditions that wipe out everyone else.
That's why it is very rare to find a second hand shop that isn't a charity shop in the UK and why it is extremely rare to find independent second hand bookshops in towns where there are a lot of charity bookshops.
They exist, but usually where the charity sector has been kept at bay.
And the market for second hand books is increasing but the vast majority of sales are online and via a small number of sellers.
Fairly obviously the market price for something that has no inherent value is determined by the place that has the lowest overheads.
Competing businesses can try to go lower on price but that's always going to be next to impossible if the competitor is not paying rates or rent and pays very little for labour.
Ultimately the place with the lower overheads has all of the advantages and can ride out trading conditions that wipe out everyone else.
That's why it is very rare to find a second hand shop that isn't a charity shop in the UK and why it is extremely rare to find independent second hand bookshops in towns where there are a lot of charity bookshops.
They exist, but usually where the charity sector has been kept at bay.
And the market for second hand books is increasing but the vast majority of sales are online and via a small number of sellers.
The last bit is the pertinent bit. Online sales are killing brick and mortar sales. Complaining about charity shops is fighting for the crumbs of a diminishing loaf rather than trying to bind a new source of bread.
In fact, it is bullshit. But given that you've already decided that charity shops make no difference to other shops, there isn't much else left to say. Even if you know jackshit and I actually have worked in the area.
In fact, it is bullshit. But given that you've already decided that charity shops make no difference to other shops, there isn't much else left to say.
Even if you know jackshit and I actually have worked in the area.
You said you worked in a charity shop. That is akin to a burger flipper at McDonald's saying they understand food supply, product distribution international commerce or anything else other than flipping burger.
Comments
Keep yer GD mites, widow! Yer perverting Me-anity!
At least she was giving directly to the organisation putting the gift to use and that she was immediately familiar with, not some professional fundraising intermediary putting her on a guild trip via direct mail.
I've worked in charity and there is never enough money. You take what you are given whatever the motivation and use it to help.
Fuck condition or wishes. You help or you don't. The rest doesn't matter.
A mental picture of this being writ large in charity boardrooms everywhere springs unbidden to mind.
I sense a goalpost move here. And @Eutychus, I knew a single mom with 4 kids who was told by the school that she needed to spend more time with each child every night, and when she laid out to them what her schedule looked like and asked when she would fit it in, they were silent. It's best to be silent about things one knows nothing about. I do know about this. Not everybody here does.
I think I'll try this. My mailbox becomes quickly stuffed with junk mail.
And for my use of hyperbole, which it is true is never used by anybody at all ever here.
My statement that financial giving is perverse and dehumanising was hyperbole and it was that way from the start. If I qualify it by saying I was referring to modern-day, industrialised giving, which I do believe has many perverse effects, its so-called effectiveness being inversely proportional to the extent it allows giving as outlined by Paul in Corinthians, you'll say I'm moving the goalposts. Oh, you already did.
Your knowing any number of single moms who have time to volunteer is not proof that they all do. That's the worst kind of substituting anecdote for data, because it shames people who are doing the best they can. It takes but one counterexample to prove
a universal claim. That's not called knowing more than you. It's called understanding logic better than you. Which clearly I do.
No, but that doesn't mean pointing out the drawbacks of the current giving mode is prohibited. Personally, I think it's reaching its limits. The Notre Dame fire brought in millions in minutes - with adverse knock-on effects on more deserving and more human-centric but less media-sexy charities.
Also, my complaint is with Christian appeals for giving in particular, because we have some pretty explicit standards laid out in the Bible which many of them seem to seek to undermine deliberately. I've already cited one which I think has sold its soul.
Also, my complaint is with Christian appeals for giving in particular, because we have some pretty explicit standards laid out in the Bible which many of them seem to seek to undermine deliberately. I've already cited one which I think has sold its soul. [/quote] Some years ago a worthy cause in my denomination hired a professional fund-raising organisation to make an appeal. It was one of those where the CEO writes you an allegedly "personal" letter with sections supposedly underlined by hand, together with other promotional material.
It may have succeeded in raising the profile of the organisation ... but it also annoyed many long-term supporters and, in financial terms, cost more than it raised (or so I believe).
I'm not sure what this has to do with what I wrote, but charity shops in the UK are trading subsidiaries because most charities cannot engage directly in trading activities.
The point is supposed to be that the trading company donates all profits to the charity.
The issue that you highlight is about the payment of business rates, where charity shops often, but not always, get relief.
But there is a moral issue here too - if the charity shop is making money only because a) it is not paying rent b) it is not paying rates c) it is not paying for the majority of the stock d) it is not paying for the majority of the labour then in at least one sense the whole of society is subsidising them to make little or no profit.
If in the process they destroy other existing (for example) second hand bookshops, then there are legitimate questions about whether the benefits they bring are really worthwhile overall.
Of course the counter argument is that with the collapse of trading on many British high streets whether there would be much trading at all without them.
Define "works". The view of some is that it doesn't really.
I think there are two sides to this. On the one side, money *can* be much more effective than donations or volunteers.
It would take a whole lot of effort to collect, sort and ship used laptops to schools in developing countries. In some circumstances, the costs of international and local shipping might be quite high (which it usually is to send random things in bulk in that direction) and it usually is much more cost effective to collect money and buy new laptops in bulk from the manufacturer. The schools get new laptops rather than someone else's leftovers.
This is just an example, the principle is the same for many things that are often collected to send abroad after disasters etc.
On the other side, there is certainly a level of hands-off-ishness that can occur when people use money rather than themselves.
Locally to me, a community group is trying to raise interest in a project in order to apply for lottery money. The grant authorities say that yet can't even apply without showing significant local engagement. But one wonders if it might be more effective to do the thing themselves rather than going a convoluted route to apply for funds to get someone else to do it.
That balance between what a local [religious] community can do and what it can or should raise money for others to do is hard to work out, I think.
Don't even get me started on this abomination. It is widely agreed that lotteries are a tax on the poor, predicated on a false hope of instant wealth. Now France is congratulating itself on privatising its national lottery, creating a new class of capitalistic, not-so-poor shareholder in taxation on the poor. How this relates to charity is beyond me.
Where does money being raised for the Jerusalem church lie on this spectrum ? I assume many of those people would have been unlikely to visit Jerusalem and so were being asked for money by an intermediary.
[Incidentally, if you read the story with anything less than charitable motives, it sounds rather like a kick back of some kind].
- we don't preach tithing in any shape or form
- our aim is to give financial support as directly as possible to organisations or individuals we know on site for whom there is the possibility of some direct accountability
There was at least some personal link with the Jerusalem church via the apostles, and they made sure the funds travelled with people personally known to them.
This is just so much sanctimonious bullshit. No one should be terribly concerned about whether or not their financial giving meets your criteria of artisanal purity.
It's a difficult call. /sarcasm
Charity shops are a visible advert of demonstrable action. If I see a Blahblah's Home for Wayward Field-mice Charity Shops on the high street and in shopping centres, I am more likely to consider you legitimate.
Branding psychology for charity might have superficially different tactics, but the overall conditioning underlying it is the same for any type of product.
Because charity shops are not trading on the same level playing field as everyone else. As I explained.
So if they are not even making much or any money from these activities then the rest of society is entitled to ask whether they really want to grant these advantages to these kinds of enterprises and the costs of doing that.
And you know this how? You have specialist knowledge about the economics of second hand bookshops do you?
That might be your perception but that seems to be worth very little. Many large charities have no charity shops.
All forms of charity marketing are a choice.
And it is an entirely legitimate activity to discuss the merits and morality of one over another.
If you want to continue talking ignorant drivel, maybe keep it to yourself?
I told one of the phone solicitors that I didn't want to be bothered by telephone, but that I kept all solicitations of funds by mail for consideration next time I reviewed my regular charitable donations. He told me that they'd stopped sending out mailers because they didn't get much response. I told him that that was obviously his charity's choice, but that I wasn't going to encourage him disturbing my time at home by giving him anything, and that this was a policy that was independent of the merits of his particular charity.
He seemed quite taken aback by this.
Our local food bank accepts donations of food. Our church collects donations for them, and we have a few members that buy a few extra things with their weekly shop and faithfully bring them in on a Sunday.
Which is great and all, except that the food bank also has bulk purchase agreements with various companies in the food industry, and can buy food for much less money than individuals can, so you do much better to give the food bank $10 rather than taking your $10 to the store and buying pasta for them.
And yet the food bank encourages people to buy food and donate it, because they know that a lot of people will donate a couple of extra tins of something, but won't actually donate money.
Because people are weird.
https://www.ft.com/content/17cbc96c-b5b6-11e7-8007-554f9eaa90ba
Because they have the name recognition and resource to do otherwise. Thank you, Captain Obvious. Morality. Right, that is what this is about. You first.
But hey, some ignoramus on the internet disagrees! So it can't be true!
I'm sorry if this conversation is too complicated for you, but as I said, I did actually work in charity retail.
The competition for retail booksellers is mainly from Amazon. Gadfrey is talking about the entire market which includes new, but you began this talking about second-and shops.
Goalpost shifted.
Yeah, the great brain has spoken!
Charity shops don't affect other independent businesses - because lo! the total market for second-hand books doth increase year-on-year!
The fact that many charity shops don't pay rates or rent has nothing to do with the difficulties of other small independents selling the same thing.
Because lo! the brainbox has spoken.
Really. Give it a rest.
When can we expect to hear about the Nobel prize and the personal chair at Cambridge, oh masterful one?
Only if they are selling the same things for less than the other shops. Typically not the case.
Fairly obviously the market price for something that has no inherent value is determined by the place that has the lowest overheads.
Competing businesses can try to go lower on price but that's always going to be next to impossible if the competitor is not paying rates or rent and pays very little for labour.
Ultimately the place with the lower overheads has all of the advantages and can ride out trading conditions that wipe out everyone else.
That's why it is very rare to find a second hand shop that isn't a charity shop in the UK and why it is extremely rare to find independent second hand bookshops in towns where there are a lot of charity bookshops.
They exist, but usually where the charity sector has been kept at bay.
And the market for second hand books is increasing but the vast majority of sales are online and via a small number of sellers.