Good intentions are sometimes a front for ill ones.
There is a lot of forced charity in my life. The cereal I buy gives 1% of profits to save the rainforests. Target donates part of their profits to charity. Starbucks gives back to local communities and various charities. The Kuhl brand shirt I bought gives part of its profit away to save the environment. Nearly everything I buy donates part of the money I pay to a charity, usually not of my choosing.
What if, instead, they just charged me a fair price for their goods with no hidden added costs? (Because, of course, they are not really giving to charity; they are merely re-allocating YOUR money to the charity of THEIR choice.)
If you don’t have a choice whether to give, then it is probably because you would have chosen not to.
Imagine if you could have that 1% back from Target and Starbucks, and the 5 cents from this boxtop and the half-percent from that clothing manufacturer and the five percent from your HP printer purchase and the whatever percent from your handbag, etc…
What if you could just have ALL your money, except the outright cost of the goods you purchase (and a fair, transparent profit), and you could allocate your extra money to the single 1 or 2 or 3 most important charities of YOUR choice? What kind of impact could you make on your local community or the things that are important to YOU if you were actually allowed to retain your hard-earned pay and do what you wish with it?
What a paradise that could be. The lesson, though, is not even that forced charity is bad (it is) but the worse evil is pretending it was your choice. The evil is marketing it as something they are doing out of their own kindness at their expense (as much as I like Starbucks, I am very clear it does not hurt them as much to give to a charity as it does me, mainly because I am supporting both their charities and mine!).
Beware of things that seem good but are meretricious at best.