Does the right give more to charity than the left?

64 posts / 0 new
Last post
ElizaQ ElizaQ's picture

 Bagkitty, I hadn't thought about chairitable tax refunds that way.  I don't usually bother with it for a couple of different reasons but am going to rethink it.  Thanks for that. 


rural - Francesca rural - Francesca's picture

Hang on a tick - I don't think you've got that straight.

Two to three years ago the United Way implemented a tracking methodology that required us to 'net' all fundraising 'events'.

So if before you announced $10 000 raised from a dinner, you could dance saying you raised $10 000, but now if the actual cost of the dinner was $8 000, you can only announce raising $2 000.  This was so we could acurately state what was being rasied.

Our United Way is very aware of 'time' heavy events, in relation to dollars raised.  So if we're going to put on a fundriasing event that will take hundreds of hours for a few hundred dollars in funds raised, we don't do it.

I don't think any United Way utilizes fundraising companies anymore.

We just announced we reached goal this morning Smile too.

I also think making a generalized satement that the money goes into wealthy neighbourhoods a bit bizzare.  I really don't get where that comes from and I'd like to see some proof.

rural - Francesca rural - Francesca's picture

[double post - computer hates me today]

Naci_Sey Naci_Sey's picture

Thread title: "Does the right give more to charity than the left?"

Yes. They've more guilt to assuage.


Well its real easy just go check United Ways charitable donations they give out  and its the sad truth for sure as kids in rich neighborhoods receive the equalivation donations of the poor.  And I'll bet on it just check out the United Way as its all open to the public to see where they put your charity in the mouths of the well to do or the poor and I'm saying both as the rich fix up their community centers and provide services poor kids only dream of.

rural - Francesca rural - Francesca's picture

mybabble wrote:
Well its real easy just go check United Ways charitable donations they give out  and its the sad truth for sure as kids in rich neighborhoods receive the equalivation donations of the poor.  And I'll bet on it just check out the United Way as its all open to the public to see where they put your charity in the mouths of the well to do or the poor and I'm saying both as the rich fix up their community centers and provide services poor kids only dream of.


ummmm links please

I know the grants we give to agencies (I run a United Way) are to agencies and most of our agencies don't have income level cut offs to access services - mental illness is mental illness - we do fund one food bank and they naturally do income assesments in processing clients.

Our other programs vary depending on what need they are trying to address.  I only have one that has a income requirement.

I also find those that don't need it, don't access our programs, people are pretty honest up here - it's so shaming to say you need help they are not about to call if they don't need it.

There are 124 United Ways across Canada and we're all unique but I'd still like to see some examples about what you're talking about.

Just looking at Francis' poverty by postal code she was able to identify that the need wasn't so much in the downtown, but out in suburbia, and that drove how agencies delievered programs as well.

We're also awary of stigma when it comes to poverty so we don't want an after school program that's just for "poor" kids, we try and include everyone. 

rural - Francesca rural - Francesca's picture

Our agencies have to demonstrate a need, and I know in our little corner of the world, I have 2 women's shellter, 2 women's shelters on FN (funded differently and fully funde) and a men's anger management program.

Each of the women's shelters need to fundraise alt least $180 000 EACH, and the men's program needs about the same for their self referred clients.

That means I need just u nder $600 000 just to fund the domestic violence needs in our community.  My entire campgin is $315 000.

Having once confronted the Minister for Community and Social Services, she told us that this enabled the agency to go our and inteact witht he community, and the underfunding was deliberate.

What a wonderful way to think about agency funding.

 So there's no way I can meet the funding needs in our community.  This is true for most United Ways.

We do make a difference in our communities and we do have major impacts upon some of our smaller agencies, but the big ones, in rural areas, it's really hard.



I wanted to get you the data but got their criteria for how United Way distrubes requests for funding is communities apply for them and communties centers and non profits then receive money for the number of children or etc in their neighborhood rich or poor.  And they have physcologist and the alike in rich communities to be seen at a drop of a hat while victims in poor neighborhoods go with out despite sexual abuse on young children. There are many agencies funded by Liberals but not enough money to stay operable in poor commities and women's groups as funding dried up.  And with all this charity going out you would think you would have the problem solved but it isn't as bodies of young children and women can be found hungry and huddled in a corner trying to stay warm on Vancouver's streets.  So I'm just not buying it all this charity when the problem has only intensified.  I do imagine the sucide rate in rich comminities will increase as investments turn to dust and job loses and forclosures become a serious problem as they then get to experience how the other half lives or rather dosen't as a good reason to keep the social safety net in place.  Its gotta be better than counting on a few hands outs that are not always there as teen sucide escalates as many have no place to turn.


In the early 1970's, there were no food banks, and unemployment rates were around 4%. What we're seeing today is another of several major crises of capitalism from last century to this one. Social safety nets around the world will be stretched to the limits in coming years. And unless something is done to fix the underlying problem, governments around the world will become more deeply indebted to a private banking cabal entrusted with near total money creation and powers of credit since a very undemocratic neoliberal ideology was foisted on us by very undemocratic methods over the last 25 years.

Charities are not so unlike the capitalism they serve to prop up. Charities are piecemeal and a haphazard way of dealing with a much larger problem inherent to all capitalist societies. They work to a certain degree but are a really inefficient way of delivering vital social services. Dozens and dozens of mini bureaucracies are duplicative and inefficient and too often lack proper funding.


And the left sees no need for charity as their belief systems are based on fundamental rights and well being for all eliminating the need for charity leaving a person feeling whole instead constantly being humbled and thankful for a stale loaf of bread and a blanket and pillow for the cold side walk they are left to sleep on.  However putting money directly into the pockets of organizations committed to saving people's life's is a real winner along with innovation for a greener way to save are planet as I just see it as being good to yourself.  Whats that old saying when one man is down we are all down or better yet what goes around comes around.


And Madd they are the greatest for sure as they keep our streets safe for us all but in times such as these the charity dollar is rapidly diminissing leaving much needed programs with out the necessary funding.  And No we could not get along with out Madd thats a given and especially with increasing problems with substance abuse which excludes no one even people of authority such as police and politicians.  I truly am thankful this organzation is around as the services it provides no community can be without and still consider their streets safe.

rural - Francesca rural - Francesca's picture

I dont you can say one charity is better than another.

It depends on your own personal set of priorities.



I think that what we can all agree on is that the real solution is permanent government change, such that everyone is able to receive the basics of life, without having to rely on charities. 

But, let's not group all right wing people together as uncaring, indifferent gluttons. It is both incorrect and ineffective in creating real change.

The fact of the matter is that both the Left and the Right have problems.

The Right have a number of people who lobby for things such as tax reduction, lower social assistance rates, etc under the guise of freedom and individual responsibility. What this really means is that they want the compassionate to shoulder a much greater share of the burden, while they continue to lead their self-indulgent lifestyles. These are the real villains. These people will always vote right.

However, there are some people on the right, that while terribly misguided, are compassionate, caring individuals, who have different social values than we do. Many of them are religous.These are people that are conflcted between their chuch-based morality and their need for social justice.

A prime example of these people are the Catholics, who voted for Obama, and then went to confession to repent the fact that they had voted for the leader who was more in favour of allowing abortion.

These people are not perfect, but they do have many good qualities. The left has two choices. We can either ostracize them, by ridiculing their religous beliefs, and drive them further to the right - or we can find the common ground, and move forward on that. 

On the left, you have some people that do it all. They volunterr, donate, advocate, lobby, try to change people's minds etc. But then you have the chardonnay socialists. These are the ones that don't really do much. They talk a good game at dinner parties, and generally treat their political opinions like a charm bracelet - something that identifies who they are and gives them character but not much more. They make few sacrifices if any for the causes they believe in - but proceed to lecture others.

These are the people that donate a pittance, don't volunteer, but have no problem putting down $700 for just the right cocktail table.

Some of these are just selfish. Others are those that just procrastiante on their good intentions. They would donate and volunteer - but first they have to finish schoo, get a good job. Then they have to buy a nice home and a car. Then they have to save money for their kids, and the college funds - then they have to put away some retirement money. The excuses never end. 

I'm concerned that the extreme left, that is intolerant of any voices but those that agree with them on 95% of issues, is going to drive away the good right wing people - the red tories, and the social conservatives - such that they will affix themselves to the CPC through thick and thin.