When you grab a angel off the Angel Tree?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I feel bad because when I looked at the tree at our local mall, all the kids were asking for stuff that cost more than what I bought for my own kid. I have a hard time rationalizing spending more on a stranger than my own kid, especially in a lean year for us financially. So I haven't grabbed an Angel yet this year.

Honestly, though, if a kid participating in this program is expecting a $400 game system or a $150 pair of designer headphones, he is setting himself up for a world of disappointment. I get that they're kids, but if your parents are poor enough to be participating in this program, they may have to set their expectations lower than top-of-the-line stuff. (Plus what happens if the parent sells the stuff to pay rent?)

That's exactly why a lot of charities that have giving trees, discourage donors from giving high priced items (though it's not always "to pay rent.")

I also think kids living in poverty also acquire a good case of the gimmes if they are given status items they don't earn or are used to being around. I think a cheap pair of head phones tells these kids if they want the $150 ones, they have to work for them themselves - or their parents do.

It seems like the staff of giving trees needs to work with families on appropriate requests. Afterall they are given these items out of the kindness of strangers' hearts and should be grateful for what they get. I know many families are grateful but there are also many bad apples making all participants look bad.

[Anonymous]

"Plus what happens if the parent sells the stuff to pay rent?"

More likely sells the stuff for drugs/booze/cigarettes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I feel bad because when I looked at the tree at our local mall, all the kids were asking for stuff that cost more than what I bought for my own kid. I have a hard time rationalizing spending more on a stranger than my own kid, especially in a lean year for us financially. So I haven't grabbed an Angel yet this year.

Honestly, though, if a kid participating in this program is expecting a $400 game system or a $150 pair of designer headphones, he is setting himself up for a world of disappointment. I get that they're kids, but if your parents are poor enough to be participating in this program, they may have to set their expectations lower than top-of-the-line stuff. (Plus what happens if the parent sells the stuff to pay rent?)

That's exactly why a lot of charities that have giving trees, discourage donors from giving high priced items (though it's not always "to pay rent.")

I also think kids living in poverty also acquire a good case of the gimmes if they are given status items they don't earn or are used to being around. I think a cheap pair of head phones tells these kids if they want the $150 ones, they have to work for them themselves - or their parents do.

It seems like the staff of giving trees needs to work with families on appropriate requests. Afterall they are given these items out of the kindness of strangers' hearts and should be grateful for what they get. I know many families are grateful but there are also many bad apples making all participants look bad.

You're the awful woman from yesterday's McDonald's thread, aren't you? You suck.

[Anonymous]

High end gifts will get sold for quick cash.

Many kids on the Angel Tree are also on other lists and trees. Never believe the "it's the only gift this child will get". The only reason it will be the only gift is if the parent takes the gifts from the kids.

[Anonymous]

Our giving tree at church specifies not to spend more than $30 per person. I pick the ones where I can get a wanted gift for $30 or under.

[Anonymous]

I do one through work that is carefully vetted and I've never seen anyone ask for name-brand high resale value stuff. It's usually along the lines of "Spider-Man stuff" or "easy-bake oven." I try to get all of the siblings in a particular family when I can. I usually spend about $150 per kid, which includes a couple of nice toys or one large thing like a bike, a couple of books, and an outfit. I spend more than on my kids bc my kids already have way more toys (and really, everything) than they need.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I have a 9y old who asked for headphones. He is getting a $35 pair of Skullcandy ones. He asked for Beats. I laughed.

I've tried both brands and I think the Beats are overrated.

[Anonymous]

I also think kids living in poverty also acquire a good case of the gimmes if they are given status items they don't earn or are used to being around. I think a cheap pair of head phones tells these kids if they want the $150 ones, they have to work for them themselves - or their parents do.

The poor kids you know must have a really good understanding of how much things really cost.

[Anonymous]

I also think kids living in affluent families also acquire a good case of the gimmes if they are given status items they don't earn. I think a cheap pair of head phones tells these kids if they want the $150 ones, they have to work for them themselves.

fixed.

[Anonymous]

On Wednesday I was at Target with my 11 yr old and while I was doing something else, DD was checking out headphones. When we met up, she reported that the ones she tried out were $200 and they weren't high quality because she could still hear the noise in the store.

Just sharing because I don't want you think just because something is expensive that automatically means it's good.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I feel bad because when I looked at the tree at our local mall, all the kids were asking for stuff that cost more than what I bought for my own kid. I have a hard time rationalizing spending more on a stranger than my own kid, especially in a lean year for us financially. So I haven't grabbed an Angel yet this year.

Honestly, though, if a kid participating in this program is expecting a $400 game system or a $150 pair of designer headphones, he is setting himself up for a world of disappointment. I get that they're kids, but if your parents are poor enough to be participating in this program, they may have to set their expectations lower than top-of-the-line stuff. (Plus what happens if the parent sells the stuff to pay rent?)

If a family decides that they'd rather their child have a home instead of a homeless shelter, and makes that possible by selling the gift I gave them, then I'm only sorry that I couldn't give more.

[Anonymous]

I've participated in the adopt-a-family programs where the asks were more structured, and I liked that. Last year, we bought a coat, hat, scarf, gloves, PJ's, book and a toy for a 12-year-old girl, plus a few other things I saw at Target that I thought would be fun. I feel a little better about buying stuff like that than spending $100 on some toy.

[Anonymous]

The first year I did Angel Tree, it was stuff like coats, a doll, legos, board games, some blocks, totally appropriate items. By the time the third year rolled around, this was about 4 years ago, they were asking for bikes, PSPs, Nintendo DSi systems, etc. It was definitely over the top. That was the last year I participated. At the time, I spent about $100/kid. No way in hell I would ever buy them a pair of high end headphones. The parents totally fill out the lists. I would actually search the tree for something I felt was appropriate and still spend about the same amount, but I definitely wasn't giving the kid a Wii or anything like that. I get that all kids, even those with less, deserve nice items, but I'm upper middle class and my kid doesn't have a pair of Beats (which suck) so no way in hell I'm buying a status item for someone else's kid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I also think kids living in affluent families also acquire a good case of the gimmes if they are given status items they don't earn. I think a cheap pair of head phones tells these kids if they want the $150 ones, they have to work for them themselves.

fixed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Akways give items that are not easily sold like plain clothing (nothing North Face especially) or simple toys and books that will engage a child but have little street value. Toys for Tots discourages anything that will be taken from a child and sold

The implication of this is so depressing.

The implication is depressing but it's true.