TopicHenry Keyser: 1st Settler in Priest River
Generally, we associate charity with giving to others out of altruism and ethical obligation. Whether an individual decides to donate to charity out of benevolence or tax spurs, individuals always give with the intention of their financial contribution apportioned directly to the cause. When individuals of the general population give $100 to Feeding America, each person invariably requires that their payment be used to purchase $100 worth of food for children. It is easy for one to monetize feeding a single child, but difficult to quantify the benefit of giving money to an organization that spends it on overhead costs. The viewpoint from the donor is basic: when money is given to a charity, it is expected to serve the cause, entirely - any other allocation must be superfluous, after all it is non-profit.
With this in mind, here is an illustration of the operations of a charitable organization. We have Brad Pitt, Lebron James, and Kanye West who contributed a total of $80 million to their favorite charity, Habitat for Humanity [hypothetical situation]. The three celebrities sit alongside the board of directors and the well-learned, well-experienced CEO of Habitat for Humanity at the next board meeting. The CEO claims that they should spend the $80 million on fundraising, research, and hiring - potentially further increasing the revenue and efficacy of the charity. Pitt, James, and West cannot rationalize the idea of spending money on the unessential and intangible. Moreover, donating money to charity that does not use the money on its cause does not make them feel as good about themselves. Following the celebrities' request, the CEO decides to spend the money on building a number of houses. However, the $80 million could have been expended in other areas that could have raised more capital and increased the effectiveness of the organization.http://searchandaman.com/category/hotels-and-resorts