100 millions is an absurd amount of money. Even assuming an interest rate after taxes of only 1%, I wouldn't even know what to do with the interests alone (about 3 000/ day).
I didn’t answer the poll, because there wasn’t an “other” option, and like several other posters, I’d probably create a trust (which would have the added advantage of keeping me busy) rather than give directly the money to charities.
I’m always a little baffled as to why people are so excited to set up their own charities.
Actually creating effective programs-- programs that actually improve things and don’t create perverse incentives or unintended consequences-- is tough. The most effective charities have decades of knowledge, cultural expertise, and trial-and-error to draw on when they start a program. In my experience, “cowboy aid” and personal pet projects tend to spend a lot of time reinventing the wheel, and often miss the mark entirely as they are guided by one person’s vision (which may be based on incomplete knowledge of the situation), rather than an objective analysis of what the recipients actually want and what is likely to create that.
I guess it’s all daydreaming, but still, count me out of the roll-your-own NGOs!
There is a lot of distrust towards charities. Some of it makes sense (there has been alot of abuse,) but some of it is ridiculous. Like most flip out when they find out that charities use like 90% of the money they make on overhead. They assume everybody who works for charities doesn’t need money to live off of.
There is also the issue of how much the CEOs of these charities make each year. The subject is rife with urban legends, etc.
People distrust charities because most are unbelievably ineffective. A non-profit that spends 90% of the money they take in on overhead is also known as a scam. It is very difficult to determine how effective a charity is even if they spend nothing on overhead. Organizations with decades of knowledge are no more likely to produce a greater benefit than individual just handing out their money to people on the street. There is no way to generalize the benefit a charity provides based on a profile, the only way to determine such a thing is a close examination of the operation and a measurement of the results of their investment in society, something which is rarely done because most can not show any beneficial results at all.
Let me know when you win! I’ll join you. I’ve got 30 bucks I can chip in…
Even if there’s more inefficiency involved in giving money directly, I retain 100% control of where it goes. The overhead would only be my own time and effort, independent of what a potentially-bloated charity organization can do. Even with a lot of waste and inefficiency, I’m pretty sure I could come up with a better ratio than 90/10.
Rachel and Tripolar - Sure if people just need money… just giving them cash IS the most effectual way!
The problem is that generally people need much more. Whether they are women in abusive relationships, kids without parents or mentally impaired homeless people, just handing them cash usually isn’t enough. You need trained professionals and support staff to help them.
I too am skeptical of charities, but there is a wide range of ways to help people and the need for organizational, structured help
I don’t deny that. But it doesn’t mean that organizations attempting to do that are successful or efficiently use donations. What we call charities in this country are just organizations that qualify for non-profit status. That status is not based on results. You can neither indict nor praise a charity based on anything but an individual investigation, there is no profile which is indicative.
The government makes that decision for me with taxes.
When I want to contribute to charity I do it by donating my time and I do it locally. That way I can keep tabs on whether my efforts are being put to good use.
It wasn’t ever thus but through the years I have become distrustful of strangers asking me for money and that includes large organizations.
My adult children are among the working poor. Those with no income have it rough but the working poor have it even rougher as they don’t qualify for help and can’t receive the same services people who don’t work can. So the bulk of my winnings will go to family.
But I can’t vote because the final option is not my attitude at all.
I used to work for a large charity.
I would not give any to an organized charity - while I was alive - but perhaps donate after my death.
If you give organized charities any money whatsoever while you are alive, they will keep coming back again and again and again…they are relentless. They actually assign a person to you and that person will call you so often they will make Capital One collections agencies seem like amateurs in comparison.
I would agree that you set up trust funds and foundations. When anyone contacts you, tell them you cannot make those decisions and to contact your foundation. Let them sort through the stacks of requests and perhaps give you a short list of possibilities - should you wish to donate.
It would also not be a bad idea to let your accountants handle the money you are giving to friends and relatives - perhaps a lump sum (to pay off house or whatever) and then a steady income over the years. I don’t know about your family and friends, but many of mine would burn through the money quickly and come back, expecting more and getting pissed off if they didn’t get it.
I think most reports have said the first thing you should do should you win is find a good lawyer and accountant. Then get the hell out of town and hide. People will be coming out of the woodwork to find you, and every charity will make it a point to track you down.
So - just hookers and blow? No…but be careful when saying you will give a certain % to charity…take it step by step and maybe make some smaller donations to well deserving individuals instead of a large charity. I think stocking the pantry of a food bank, or paying for AIDS medication at a clinic, or buying vans for a nursing home would be better, immediate investments that would be put to use immediately by the people who need them.
There’s no obligation to donate to a cause with ongoing maintenance costs, though. My preference would be to purchase musical instruments for lower-income high school bands, or to fund scholarships, or to pay the medical bills of someone who got screwed by our healthcare system.
First comes taxes.
After taxes, I give half of what’s left to charities.
It’ll cost about $100,000 to pay off my mortgage and all my debts.
$100,000 should put my daughter through college.
A million to my parents, another million split evenly among my eight siblings and their kids. That’ll be fun watching them fight over my money and telling them “no, I already gave you money”.
Buy a few commercial properties in tropical SE Asia and build hotels so I can retire in comfort to the tropics. Vietnam is developing, and I have a few business contacts in Indonesia.
A new car for the wife, new pickup for me.
A red Yamaha R1 for my midlife crisis.
That should be enough. Invest the rest in mutual funds.
I’m really not understanding why this should be done on a percentage basis. I’ll consult a financial advisor and make sure specific amounts are reserved for me and my family and friends. What’s left will go to good causes over time.
In north St. Louis city & County there are considerable areas which are considered food deserts’.
It has always been a thought of mine to start a place in this area that would provide a weekly supply of fresh produce and baked goods, at no cost, to poor families.
First I’d have to see how much my family and friends would drain off of me. Then set aside whatever would yield enough interest for a dependable modest income forever. Then after that I’d look into charities or pet projects or whatnot.
That’s the ideal, of course. In reality, I’m a human with weaknesses, so it would probably be hookers and blow until my head exploded, and that’s why I don’t play the lottery.
Sorry fellas, couldn’t help a Futurama reference there.
I think most charities are crooked and I’d much rather have the government doing what they do. I’d rather my money be funneled directly into research grants and universities in the form of taxes instead of giving lunatics like the folks and Susan B Komen the chance to a) waste half of what I gave them putting on balls, advertisements and chasing more money and b) stage political campaigns to further an agenda or otherwise siphon that money off to something I don’t agree with.
I’ll donate to the government and then tell my senator how to use it. (It’s a pipe dream I know, but this system makes a hell of a lot more sense than the current one)
Every respectable international development organization that I know of does regular monitoring and evaluation of their programs, often using gold-standard randomized control group studies to determine what project activities are the most effective. These results are published and widely discussed. Some have high overheads because the product they provide is expertise (for example, they may focus on helping countries restructure their healthcare systems), rather than goods are direct services, and experts cost money. Running an NGO requires the same skills as running a business, and unless you want your finance department to be a bunch of yahoos, you have to compete with the private sector.
That said, most major NGO money internationally comes from governments, and individual donations are a drop in the bucket.
Anyway, all I know is that most of the truly bad organizations I’ve known internationally come from well-intentioned people who wandered in to some place, fell in love, and decided it’d be neat to start a school or whatever. It turns out that if you try to run a school with no experience, you are likely to end up with an institution that is rife with corruption and even abuse. If any of you do win millions of dollars, I’d strong suggest hiring experts with solid experience in good organizations to manage your charity work, rather than going on your gut feelings about what kind of project would be neat.
Many legitimate charities cannot exist without ongoing maintenance costs though. Consider the folks who go into developing countries and fix cataracts and fistulas and so on. The governments of those places don’t really have the money to do that on an ongoing basis (or they might be corrupt - but that doesn’t mean that people who need charities’ services should suffer). But by its very nature, most of the operation of such a charity is going to be “ongoing cost” - the salaries of doctors, and continuing supplies of consumables. That doesn’t mean it’s not valuable.
Buying “stuff” can be valuable too - but a lot of people prefer to buy “stuff” rather than contribute to un-sexy but necessary ongoing costs to really properly use that stuff. Meaning that there’s comparatively more need in the ongoing-cost line.
My friend’s sister was a medical missionary in Tanzania till last year. She was telling me a story about how one of the associate churches was keen to really support them well, so they got themselves fired up, raised a bunch of money, and sent…a bunch of good quality raising-and-lowering hospital beds. So, all well and good, but the hospital didn’t actually have a stable and consistent electricity supply. :smack: The beds sat taking up room in storage, till finally some of them were cannibalised to make wheelchairs. If they’d funded a couple of nurses’ salaries for ten years instead, they would have done so much more good.
I’m not planning on adding to government funded programs, or to start a ‘neat’ school in Tanzania. I talked about just the opposite, doing something with money where I’d know it would produce results and not be spent enriching administrators. It’s not the people with expertise wasting the money, it’s the administrators who take too large a share of donations, or direct funds to programs which don’t actually help anyone.