Also, one wonders why so many big charity donors are anonymous.
Not only asking, but giving is a potentially sensitive act that
sometimes (perhaps from modesty) demands discretion/anonymity.
When giving money to a homeless person I notice I'll prefer to do it
when nobody is looking, and move on quickly, avoiding too much of a
"thank-you".
It's not just that act has to be "Kantian".
There's definitely something about giving that carries the same
barrier, and it's remedied by anonymity. I'll put cash money in a
charity box, but would never use an identifiable card/digital method.
Charities ought to know this if they're wise. that the "cash-less"
society is the death sentence for them.
London (City of London) pre pandemic used to regularly have troops of charity employees hard selling their pitch and only accepting monthly subscription payments via Direct Debit, which is the legal equivalent of granting joint custody of your funds to the extent that the Halifax savings and loan used to refuse to cancel a direct debit payment for the customer, claiming that the customer has no such right, and the severality of granting regulated but effectively unfettered withdrawal authority lead me to think twice about taking them to court. The UK Direct Debit system doesn't even verify the customers name against the account details, wide open to fraud. Anyhow the argument for declining both cash and once off card donations wasn't anything to do with the sidewalk venue, but the charity wanting me to give them my tax deduction as well. They'd be lined up across Cheapside in funnel formations. No wonder that WFH is still so popular.
Sometime in the early 2000s the most of British charity was
transformed (dragged through the mud) by corporate whackjobs, PR
gurus, and Feng Shui design soothsayers to align their ley-lines and
whatnot.
Charity shops stopped having any actual bargains in them, and the
money boxes we used to enjoy putting spare change into vanished.
They made up all kinds of bizarre, frankly unbelievable stories about
how the staff "weren't trained to handle cash" and that robbers would
steal their charity tins (in broad daylight outside Waterloo station
under 200 CCTV cameras... like Jimmy Reckon!)
Then all those charity scandals about abuse and corruption came out.
Heartbreaking what a few clueless, vicious vandals and scumbags in
suits can do to brand reputations earned over centuries.
Also, one wonders why so many big charity donors are anonymous.
Not only asking, but giving is a potentially sensitive act that sometimes (perhaps from modesty) demands discretion/anonymity.
When giving money to a homeless person I notice I'll prefer to do it when nobody is looking, and move on quickly, avoiding too much of a "thank-you".
It's not just that act has to be "Kantian".
There's definitely something about giving that carries the same barrier, and it's remedied by anonymity. I'll put cash money in a charity box, but would never use an identifiable card/digital method.
Charities ought to know this if they're wise. that the "cash-less" society is the death sentence for them.