Giving a gift is rarely about the thing itself, it's a way of reaffirming the common ground and understanding between the people involved. That's why the best gifts are those that show real understanding of the receiver by the giver.

For some of our friends, a donation in their name is perfect way of affirming that connection. For others, we would give something else.

I agree, it would depend a lot on the people, and charity, involved. What you're really giving them is a tax deduction. Certainly not a catch all gift for everyone on your list.

For my old friend the dog catcher, I put money on her account at the vets. It's always welcome and greatly appreciated.

I'd rather have a stick blender.

Seriously, good gift giving is an art, involving matching with the donee's interests, lifestyle, economic means, and the joy of giving and receiving.

If a charitable donation, or any other gift, is just done because you don't know what else to give that person, and the person hasn't asked for it or indicated an interest--it's a poorly chosen gift.

I wanted to send items to the military men but when I checked out the performance quota on what percentage actually got there I changed my mind.

I think donating to local shelters animal and human alike is a good thing.

A coworker hands out blankets in the winter. I think that is awesome.

I hope some of the gifts I have been given over the years were convenient re-gifts or thoughtless purchases made simply to have something to hand over. If I thought that they really thought I'd actually want or like those things...:eek:

My brother has given to Nothing But Nets in others' names. I think it's a wonderful thing to do. He's a sports fanatic, and read about the program in Sports Illustrated, and he wanted to do something.

I chose "Tacky copout" but that's far harsher than I really feel.
I think it really works in some situations and with some people.

No-one I know really has everything. Apart from my brother, and it's not that he's rich, just that he has simple needs that he happily fulfills. Even if I had unlimited money it would be hard to work out what to buy him, but I like the challenge. I wouldn't make a donation in his name because it just wouldn't feel right - it would feel like I was saying, "Here, I did this because you're too mean to do it yourself!"

On the other hand, when I worked for the NHS the HR department decided to send out an email instead of sending Christmas cards. And the money they saved doing that was used to purchase a goat for a family in Africa. I thought that was a wonderful and elegant way of doing it.

I wonder if there is any relationship between men and women and how they voted concerning the charitable donation gift idea. I don't know if some of the Cellar members who voted have... errr, members or not, so I can't tell. Anyone else?

I've done it for my dad, but he asked me to.

Kiva. It's actually a really cool idea, since you will ideally get your money back.

Sweet - the men are for it, the women are against it (in general terms).

Fixed it for ya. ;)

I don't believe in giving to charities. If I want to express my philanthropy I'll do something with my own hands or give money directly to those in need. I don't want 90% of my contribution going to fund some non-profit organization. I want to HELP.

I would be incredibly offended if someone donated in my name. I would never donate in another person's name.

Yup, You need to be careful where you donate your money.

Perry, that perspective is always curious to me.

I guess I'm coming at this with the thought that when it comes to impacting poverty, $50 in the hands of an organization like World Vision or Heifer International is going to be used in a way that's much more effective, in the long run, than anything I could do with that $50 directly. My efforts will be haphazard, decisions made emotionally, with little understanding of the actual realities of the situation. Their efforts, on the other hand, are ongoing, sustained, pragmatic, and hopefully effective.

There is an infrastructure cost to doing things well, whether that thing is building a car or impacting poverty. I consider the institutional cost to be the price of professionalism, which I place a high value on, even in charitable organizations.

What level of institutional cost is acceptable? I don't know. 10%? 15%? Charity Navigator is an organization that audits non-profits and gives you a breakdown on how they spend their money. For World Vision, a group our family has supported for a long time, they spend about 86% directly on programs, about 5% on administration, and about 8% on fundraising. That seems very reasonable to me.

It seems possible that our lust for stuff is waning. Unless we're talking good booze.

Is good booze considered stuff?