<div><object width="576" height="324"><param name="movie" value="http://d.yimg.com/nl/techticker/site/player.swf"></param><param name="flashVars" value="vid=25066301&browseCarouselUI=hide&"></param><param name="allowfullscreen" value="true"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed width="576" height="324" allowFullScreen="true" src="http://d.yimg.com/nl/techticker/site/player.swf" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" flashvars="vid=25066301&browseCarouselUI=hide&"></embed></object></div>
I got about 1 minute in and had to stop it. IMO he just sounds like a guy who's trying to stir up a little controversy. It's a pretty flimsy argument (at least through the first minute). For the record, I don't begrudge anyone who chooses not to give to charity.
Off the top of my head, I have the following counterarguments: (a) If your tax rate is approaching 50% (mine does ), giving to an official non-profit organisation is a much more efficient way of getting money to the "final cause" (assuming that the final dollar will have the same impact). Even after 10% administrative costs and another 20% advertisement expenses, still more of your pre-tax dollars reaches the final user then if I would donate the remaining 50%~ directly and forgo the tax deduction. (b) Going to a nice black tie party hosted by, say, Robin Hood Foundation or the Gift of Life International is nice. If I take a girl with me, I am getting some lovin' that night, while I don't think giving money directly to someone who's house burned down would have the same effect. (c) It is much easier to measure the potential impact of your dollar (and thus, the amount of warm and fuzzy feeling you are getting) if you are dealing with a proven charity vs if you are dealing with an individual in need.