I think the biggest elephant in the room with charities is that somebody has to run them. Let's say a guy runs a charity which provides great help for some people. Eventually running charity becomes his full time job. A guy needs to attend some galas to raise more money, is he able to buy a suit? Guy's kids are really good at school, they want to attend some good university, maybe even abroad. Should charity "pay" for these schools? On the one hand a person doing such a great job should be able to pay for his kids education, live a comfortable life, maybe drive a good car. On the other hand where does it end? How much taking from charity is too much?
This is why I think it should really be taxes/governmental social services all the way.
IME this sort of 'concern' is exclusively something that miserable people waffle about out of some sort of jealousy for anyone who has a semi-decent life.
Obviously it's not a problem for a charity worker to buy a suit or send their children to school. They're not "taking" from the charity any more than I'm "taking" from my employer by being paid some percentage of what I earn for them.
As long as they are effective for their cause and care then there's no reason why they shouldn't earn as much as a private sector employee.
It used to be fairly common for people to moan about parliamentary salaries in the UK. An MP earns on the order of 100K with expenses accounted for, which is like, enough to buy a small-ish flat in London. Good money, nothing stratospheric to someone who isn't stuck in a poverty mindset.
When I see charities that employ people in expensive locations I don't feel like my money is actually having any impact. Remember the 80000 hours advice? Make a boatload of money and spend it on charity? That doesn't work when working an additional 40 hours of overtime a week results in someone else getting a 20 hour per week position at a charity because they earn twice as much as you. Why not just do the 20 hours yourself at that point? Save money for a year. Be a volunteer for 6 months. Except people won't do that. So nothing gets done in the end and since the charity probably wastes the money anyway you don't even have to feel bad.
1) Most governments, especially in third world countries where help is needed the most, are rife with corrupt officials and inept bureaucracy. Democracy doesn’t always give the proper incentives for government to care about (a) the long-term future, which matters more for young children who can’t vote, (b) minority interests, again because their vote might not necessarily sway elections. Hence, there is definitely a case to be made for charities and governments to operate side-by-side.
2) Govt officials should be paid well, they do an important job.
3) I think there is a lot more wasteful overhead at charities than employee payroll, which should be cut down upon. I know of some well-regarded charities which fly their junior employees in business-class. Things like that can probably be improved first before turning the gaze on payroll.
The taxes aren't that big, You get a effective police force, good health care, good education, safe societies and a good economy from the network effects of those things.
If you think those taxes are huge it suggests that you don't understand how you could be paying less overall for the above mentioned things if you had a consolidated population driving costs down. or that your comfortable with inequality as long as you get yours.
