Morocco Earthquake: Why Spaniards Refuse to Donate to NGOs

Donating to the Segarro Earthquake: Taxes vs. Charity

The earthquake that struck Segarro left behind an uncomfortable question: do you open your wallet or wait for the State to act? In the Spanish economic context, the dominant response was a resounding no. Not due to a lack of money in others' pockets, but due to distrust of the intermediary.

At first glance, it might seem like pure stinginess. Upon reading the details, another picture emerges: a flat rejection of NGOs, their emotional advertising campaigns, and the suspicion that the money does not reach the affected. And an idea that orders the entire argument: the taxpayer has already paid their share in advance.

Why do many refuse to donate to an NGO for the earthquake?

The most repeated argument is that of sentimental double taxation. "I never give anything to any NGO," summarizes one of the most supported responses: the State takes close to 50% of what is earned, and part of that money ends up in subsidies to those same organizations. Collaborate, then, is already collaborating. The conclusion for those who hold this is that donating again is paying twice for the same thing.

On top of that goes distrust about the final destination. "I dread that any of that money would reach the affected," points out another intervention. Campaigns with images of children and motivational little tunes do not help: some see a business there and calculate that 1% of the cost of the video and photography team would feed the photographed family for an entire year. This is an estimate by a forum participant, not a verified figure.

"They have billions to buy weapons"

Here the analysis enters shaky ground. One current holds that Segarro does not need the charity of a Spanish individual because it dedicates billions to armament. The corollary is added by another response: that the king sells some of his luxury cars. The figure is not accompanied by a source and is not verified in the exchange; it functions as a discard argument, not as a fact.

"The government will pay it with our taxes"

Another path is to delegate to the public and disengage. The phrase repeats with variants: let the Executive pay it, that it is already done from the common coffers, before, during, and after the earthquake. It is the same reasoning that runs through much of the fiscal discontent: foreign aid exists, it is financed the same way, and the individual decision changes nothing.

Those who do donate, and their own contradiction

There is a minority that responds yes. "I gave 30 euros in the Turkey earthquake and will do the same with the Segarro one, through the NGO Avaaz," writes someone who, two sentences later, defends that charity should not exist: theirs should be covered by the taxation of rich countries. Donates precisely because the system does not work as it should.

Another piece of the puzzle: according to the exchange, the Segarro monarch himself announced the opening of an account to channel private donations. For some, this deactivates the need to give; for others, it confirms that the money will end up where it is least needed.

---

The exact point where the analysis gets stuck is this: no one disputes that reconstruction costs money. They dispute the channel, and none of the available ones — NGOs, State, official account, direct donation — ultimately convince those who have to open their wallets. Distrust is not resolved by an earthquake; at best, it is confirmed.