Red Cross Tsunami Appeal - a challenge

[TinMan666]

OK guys, I'm laying out a challenge on every message board taht I visit on the internet - because I reckon that the guys and girls on MY site can donate more money than people on other boards.

Actually, I don't really give a shit who donates more, I just want to do my part to get people donating.

I've donated 100 bucks, and I'm challenging everyone on my board to post as much as they can afford, whether it's 10 bucks or 110 bucks.

NOW I'm challenging you lot to donate more than the people on my site.

Lets do it guys.

http://www.redcross.org.au/default.asp

http://www.titaniumarchives.com/board/viewtopic.php?p=36724#36724

 

[Goreripper]

Sweet idea Tinman!

 

[mattt]

No.

 

[Shannow]

TinMan,
I was appalled when little Johnny gave them 50c on my behalf, and didn't feel much better when he upped it to $1.75 on my behalf.

So now my total contributions are $101.75.

edit 'cause I fucked up.

 

[TinMan666]

TinMan,
I was appalled when little Johnny gave them 50c on my behalf, and didn't feel much better when he upped it to $3 on my behalf.

So now my total contirbutions are $103.

So that makes us even? Good.

 

[Spiff]

I want to donate, but there are too many appeals going on so I'm not sure which one to donate to. I already sponsor a little Indonesian kid through Plan (who, for all I know, is one of the dead) so I'll probably donate through them. I'll post here how much I contribute.

Has there ever been a distaster like this where so many countries were affected at the same time?

 

[Shannow]

Spiff, I don't think there's been anything like this (at least since telephones, radio and T.V.)

I chose red cross, as they limit their "cut" to 10%, which a lot don't.

 

[Spiff]

That's a good point. I wonder how many of the aid orgs advertise how much they take. I have no problem with them taking a cut of the donations but obviously the less the better.

 

[Spiff]

Done. $100 to the Red Cross because I was looking at their site anyway.

First time I've done that sort of thing.

 

[Mark]

You could always ask (if there's a way to) that your donation goes to active assistance, and not admin costs. Charities 'waste' a shitload of money with admin costs (I know that from being behind the scenes, so to speak).

 

[Shannow]

Interesting Stat

It cost about 75 cents to kill a man in Caesar's time. The price rose to about $3,000 per man during the Napoleonic wars; to $5,000 in the American Civil War; and then to $21,000 per man in World War I. Estimates for the future wars indicate that it may cost the warring countries not less than $50,000 for each man killed.

Senator HomerT.Bone (Dem.Washington, speaking before the start of WWII)​

http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/CIB/2002-03/03Cib24.htm


​

 

[mattt]

You could always ask (if there's a way to) that your donation goes to active assistance, and not admin costs. Charities 'waste' a shitload of money with admin costs (I know that from being behind the scenes, so to speak).

thats why I don't donate to charities. Of course this is an enormous tragedy but I still don't trust the charity organisations with my hard earned money.

 

[Mark]

So how else would you help? Put the money in an envelope and send it over?

The best one can do is to donate to charities that keep their admin costs to a minimum (they'll tell you what percentage of their 'takings' is spent on administration costs, if you ask).

 

[Goreripper]

Apparently the Red Cross spent a fuckload of the money they collected for the Canberra Bush Fire Appeal on a new head office building. That's why they now limit their cut to 10%. Politics aside, I'll donate what I can to somebody, and probably them, because they help everyone.

 

[Mark]

The fact that the Red Cross are a frontline organisation means more money will be put to better use. The charity I worked for spent 30%+ on admin costs, which included about £100k just for the director's salary. Think of the little old ladies donating £2 a month out of their pension, because a family member died of cancer, and 50,000 of those donations going to this bloke's salary - and the shit they do to try and make MORE money, like crap ads and mini-websites.

/rant

 

[dreamwatch]

£60 just done - not sure what that is in dollaroos though, about $145?

 

[Mark]

Thereabouts, yups

 

[Goreripper]

The fact that the Red Cross are a frontline organisation means more money will be put to better use. The charity I worked for spent 30%+ on admin costs, which included about £100k just for the director's salary. Think of the little old ladies donating £2 a month out of their pension, because a family member died of cancer, and 50,000 of those donations going to this bloke's salary - and the shit they do to try and make MORE money, like crap ads and mini-websites.

/rant

I will always support the Red Cross simply because they don't just help one particular group or relief effort. They help everyone. As much as spending a good deal of their donations on a new head office building may be upsetting to a lot of people, you can't run an organisation like the Red Cross without decent administration facilities, and if a better administration facility helps them do their work more efficiently, then it's money well spent. Besides which, the money that was spent on a new headquarters was only a fraction of what they actually spend on worldwide relief and aid programs, so it's not that big a deal. When it comes down to it, I'd rather see 100% of my donation to the Red Cross being used by the Red Cross for something they need to do their work better than 80% of each $1 from each Big Mac I buy on McHappy Day being used by McDonalds to make TV ads to exhort people to donate to Ronald McDonald House. As if McDonalds needs to raise money from public donation to fund anything.