Any corporate sponsored charity event is 100% just a tax break for the corp paid for by others.

I worked for a grocery chain in south east America called, Publix. Every year they have a big meeting about United Way, a large organization that accepts donations to then handpick what charities the money goes to. Overall I have no problem with united way, it solves the question "what should I donate to". What i didn't like was that Publix handed out forms at the end of the meeting heavily suggesting how much money from each paycheck should be donated to united way. It was just a big guilt trip. They kept track of which location donated the most and proudly patted theirselves on the back. Like every other corporation we weren't paid enough and overworked. Prices climbed higher and the CEO got richer. When I was up for promotion my manager said it would look better if I donated more money per paycheck. Why the fuck would he be able to see that? Why the fuck would that be a factor as to whether I got promoted?

Your assumption that all people who participate in charity oppose greater public services is false.

More taxes and less charity

The only charity I participate in is donating food and toys to animal shelters. It’s somewhat self-serving, as I donate foods and toys my pets don’t like/wont use. But all the same, I’ve donated thousands worth this way.

I like thrift shops, but I don’t really consider resale to be charity even if proceeds are used for charity (that aspect isn’t relevant to me). I used to donate more to stuff but I just feel used now.. why do you need my $5, which I also need, when you have 20 million other dollars for stuff?

I’m firmly of the opinion, as you are, that charity directed at supporting humans shouldn’t exist because the government (either local or national) should be handling it. The fact that that isn’t the case says a lot about us as a society.

Also fun runs specifically should be outright banned. It’s just a bunch of pretentious healthy assholes blocking traffic all day every weekend because there’s fucking always a fun run somewhere. “I know, let’s support some dispersed group by massively inconveniencing everyone around us, because that makes us good people!!” Fuck you. Go exercise on your own street. Nobody needs to see you doing it.

I’ve had this debate with myself a few times. In my country air ambulances (helicopters) are often funded by a charity, while normal ambulances are funded by the state. Such essential services shouldn’t be relying on charity to exist.

In work I’ve also been involved in providing services to major national charities, and I’ve often been shocked by the amount of waste and inefficiency going on behind the scenes.

That said I also know plenty of local charity groups that are well runs and make a big difference to the area. I’m not anti charity, but I think it does deserve more accountability.

I'm not too fond of most charities, but donate to a select few that I consider aren't money-laundering machines or straight up get-rich schemes for their founders, and of course I donate to open-source. In the absence of a functional system, what options do you think we have to bridge the gap?

I'm not saying you're doing nothing, but I often see the attitude that it's not worth doing anything until something has changed, but not doing anything is a guaranteed way to never bring about change. That attitude (again, not saying you have it) feels like either giving up or looking for an excuse to do nothing.

I think there's a little difference between charity in general and "charity events" or "fundraisers".

One one hand, you've got people personally deciding to give some money towards something they chose to support, which is great.

But sponsored fundraisers are actually a bit weird.

Fundraiser: "Hi, would you like to donate £10 to help cure cancer?"

Potential donor: "I'm an incredibly wealthy man, so I can easily afford that... but... you just want me to give you some money in exchange for nothing?"

Fundraiser: "It's not nothing - you get to know you've helped a worthy cause, made the world a better place..."

Potential donor: "No... unless... no, sorry, that's ridiculous..."

Fundraiser: "No, wait! Tell me your idea!"

Potential donor: 'Well, I could probably give you some money... if someone suffered."

Fundraiser: "Suffered?!?"

Potential donor: "Yes, I want you to make a fat, asthmatic man run a marathon, dressed in a really awkward, incredibly warm costume that makes him look ridiculous. If he suffers enough, you can have your £10 for whatever it was you were on about."

Fundraiser: "Curing cancer is seen to be a good cause - are you sure you couldn't just donate the money?"

Potential donor: "Yes. I can only give away a tiny pittance of money if there is suffering. You could also make the man sit in a bathtub full of beans for a whole day. I imagine that's unpleasant enough to appease my hunger for suffering."

Surely we all agree this whole concept is a bit weird?

I don't donate to charity, but I do donate to the Special Olympics in my area. My little sister is an athlete in it and she is thriving now that she's part of something. It's a really good thing for everyone involved and I want it to continue. I've never seen proof in my area that charities are actually putting donations to use in a tangible way. I've looked into it, too, out of curiosity.

You don't hate Charity, you hate that charity is necessary.

We should not have the problems that charities exist to try and solve. I think most would agree with that.

The problem is that people couldn't agree on which areas we should tackle first. Is it sick kids? Cancer patients? Mental health?

We can't do all of the things, that's the real issue, so we end up picking and choosing the things we feel are most important. And that's what charities really do, they give you a chance to pick the thing that matters most to you.