All of your theories and speculations may be correct and may work for you. For me, they don't, but that's why someone cleverly arranged for us to not be the same person. Yes, it is clever bookkeeping that does all that... yet, somehow, some of the bottom line becomes known.
What if an organization only used 20% of the money they received for the purpose of their charity but on the other hand used the other 80% to pay salaries to a large amount of people who had a dire need to be involved in a charitible activity and didn't have the money to do it?
When I give my hard-earned money, I want it to go to the bottom of the ladder, not the top. Those with a dire need to be involved in a charitable activity and didn't have the money to do it could still find other ways to contribute, say washing dishes at the Salvation Army; distributing flyers; helping out at events; doing mailings; serving the soup at the soup kitchen for the homeless; whatever it might be.
There are many ways. If they can manage to get to the charity to collect part of that 80%, they could also stop by to do something for nothing. Generally, from the figures I've seen, the number of people involved in many of those organizations aren't many, just a few, with lion's-share salaries to 'manage' it all. If I spend $100 for the people living in the Rainforest or in Uganda, I want $80 to end up being directly distributed at the village level, not usurped by 75 people hired for the distribution of $20.
It's probably just a matter of personal taste when it comes to charities, right? I'm more concerned with the animals with the Humane Society actually eating than I am with feeding the dire need of someone to collect a salary that exceeds the reasonable costs. A person can volunteer to clean cages, to walk the animals, whatever. That's what, in my mind, is fulfilling a dire need to help.
Someone might want to consider a charity called "Dire Need Helpers" and then, contributing to fulfilling
their needs would be up front and honest. I'm more concerned with the ones who don't have those kind of choices to make in the first place. As I said, probably personal taste.
I'm not sure what you mean by this:
I guess that is one thing to check if you can't find anything better.
If you're suggesting "better [use of time]," then for me, checking that kind of thing out is a judicious use of time, but if for you, you feel you can put it to better use, then for you, that's how you'll deal with charitable contributions and feel good about it.
If you're suggesting that if you can't find a charity that suits you, regardless of how the money gets spent because that's not an area of concern for you; then you can choose from those that are left, according to the 'spending' criteria... then that still comes down to personal choice. That's one thing about charities. They're
all about
personal choice.
That's my take on charities... along with my chosen ones for auto-deduction, I've packed up boxes and bags of clothing and other needed items, and donated them directly to the facility where the people who needed them live. Personal choice. There tend to not be a lot of paid staff, however; mostly minimum-wage workers or volunteers.
~ Lizzy