RMweb Premium kevinlms Posted November 24, 2015 RMweb Premium Share Posted November 24, 2015 So how did this lot ever get a charity status in the first place. Perhaps if they hadn't been so OTT, they'd have got away with it for years. http://www.theage.com.au/national/charity-that-spent-1m-on-luxury-cars-holidays-and-gambling-loses-taxfree-status-20151124-gl6v2o.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
34theletterbetweenB&D Posted November 24, 2015 Share Posted November 24, 2015 It's a truth that bears endless repetition: inspect very closely exactly what the organisation actually does to justify getting any of your hard earned. The UK's Charity Commission has had to take a very hard line with a fair number of well known UK charitable organisations over the years. Not just for direct misuse of funds; but also for aspects such as refusing to back off the fundraising despite having a sufficient cashpile to maintain operations with no further income for the next 60 years, and diverting restricted donations to undoubtedly charitable purposes without first consulting the donors and altering their stated objectives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sweeps Posted November 24, 2015 Share Posted November 24, 2015 The bigger charities are getting more aggressive each day to the detriment of the smaller purely volunteer organisations who haven't a hope to compete with professional marketing and cut throat fundraiser who care little about the cause they are raising money for. Study the accounts carefully and try and support a charity where you know your money will actually make a difference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davefrk Posted November 24, 2015 Share Posted November 24, 2015 I stopped giving to one of the big charities after seeing one of their 'local' offices. The offices could have doubled as any big company HQ and the cars outside showed what salaries were being paid.... Sorry but I want more than 10% of my money to go to the cause.... The Sally Army gets my money at Christmas. Dave Franks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Horsetan Posted November 24, 2015 Share Posted November 24, 2015 As I've said before, any "charity" which pays its staff large salaries, claims expenses and tax advantages, etc. is not actually a charity, but a business. The whole racket really needs shutting down, and the regulations redrafted from scratch to stipulate that only those bodies whose staff (and I mean ALL staff from the bottom to the top brass) give their time and effort free and unpaid should be formally recognised as "charities". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arthur Posted November 24, 2015 Share Posted November 24, 2015 My wife, who supports several charities, was appalled when she visited the central London offices of one of them. As you say Dave, they wouldn't have disgraced a small multinational. I'm another who supports the Sally Army. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Revolution Mike Posted November 24, 2015 RMweb Gold Share Posted November 24, 2015 As I've said before, any "charity" which pays its staff large salaries, claims expenses and tax advantages, etc. is not actually a charity, but a business. The whole racket really needs shutting down, and the regulations redrafted from scratch to stipulate that only those bodies whose staff (and I mean ALL staff from the bottom to the top brass) give their time and effort free and unpaid should be formally recognised as "charities". Why? Why should anyone have to work for nothing to work for a charity? Some of the most effective charities are run as big businesses and would be a great deal less efficient if they weren't! It is always a case of assessing the cost v benefit (and that my a personal judgement). Some of the greatest value to UK society is delivered by a large range of well-run charities and it is difficult to imagine in many areas that we could survive without them - whether that is Mountain Rescue, Cancer care/treatment/research, social care etc etc. If a charity is poorly run (or indulges in poor practice eg some of the fundraising tactics we have all heard of or experienced) then by all means complain to their regulator. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Jonboy Posted November 24, 2015 RMweb Gold Share Posted November 24, 2015 The Charity I used to volunteer could probably have halved its paid staff if the legal profession halved the supply of try it on Ambulance-chasing lawyers....however the flip side of our mature legal system is that the training and compliance of the volunteers are kept to a very high standard, benefitting the member of the public they come into contact with Also who really gets a kick out of volunteering time to negotiate with insurers, telecoms company's, IT providers, copier salesmen and all the other wonderful people selling services...followed swiftly by selling your contact details to others selling such services.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenton Posted November 24, 2015 Share Posted November 24, 2015 then by all means complain to their regulator.By then it is too late! The damage has been done and the regulator generally ineffective and toothless. I have no issue with a charity such as Cancer care or Hospice paying staff at the front-line to perform the good work of the charity. But where I agree is on the sentiment that those at the top of these charities should not be receiving substantial salaries or perks. There should be some sort of rule that dictates that less than, say, 5% of donations should go on "admin" and that the rest should go to the objective of the charity. One of the biggest annoyances is the hard sell advertising (particularly on TV, media). All my donations are given to local charities that benefit the community. (that local does not mean just geographic local to me, but local as in they are operated local to the objective they serve) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Purley Oaks Posted November 24, 2015 Share Posted November 24, 2015 Charitable status is a funny thing - most public schools have it, for instance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve1 Posted November 24, 2015 Share Posted November 24, 2015 Charitable status is a funny thing - most public schools have it, for instance. Now that really IS a rip-off. How the %*£@ can they be regarded as charities when they exist purely to 'educate' the already well provided for? steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium jjb1970 Posted November 24, 2015 RMweb Premium Share Posted November 24, 2015 I think it is a big problem for society that people seem to be becoming increasingly disillusioned with charities and certain practices such as chugging and forceful fundraising practices, inefficient use of funds etc. Note that I am not accusing all charities of such failings but unfortunately people see enough of such practices to become cynical about the whole concept of charities. I donate to the RNLI and consider that they provide a world class maritime SAR service and by its very nature it is an expensive service to run and to manage some aspects of their operations requires paid staff even if their crews are mainly volunteers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Posted November 24, 2015 Share Posted November 24, 2015 "Charities" - how the word make me wretch - The last and final straw that broke the camel's back was a guy from UNICEF on a commission making a pitch at my front door - I have become as Scrooge - Charities? - Humbug... I do all my giving direct - no ambitious middlemen looking to own a BMW on the backs of some poor children in Africa... SO... "All Charity (it would seem) corrupts and absolute Charity corrupts absolutely" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonny777 Posted November 24, 2015 Share Posted November 24, 2015 For many years in the 1990s I sponsored a young girl in Malawi. I received occasional letters and a card at Christmas. Then, just before her 17th birthday, when as I understood it my sponsorship ended, I was told that her family had left the village and disappeared from the charity's jurisdiction. But not to worry, I was told, they had found me a younger girl in Ethiopia to sponsor. However, not long before her 17th birthday I was told her family had suddenly left the village and disappeared from the charity's jurisdiction, but not to worry because they had found a younger girl in Somalia. I left them in no doubt that they were getting no more out of me. Once was enough, but trying it twice was an insult to my intelligence. A few weeks later I received a phone call from the charity, which when I told them what had happened, became quite disturbing. The woman at the other end was either not used to being talked to in rather agricultural language or actually did believe I was the meanest, nastiest male on the planet; but in the end I just put the phone down and have had nothing more to do with them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kickstart Posted November 24, 2015 Share Posted November 24, 2015 Why? Why should anyone have to work for nothing to work for a charity? Why should anyone give their money for nothing to pay someone elses wages? All the best Katy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Horsetan Posted November 24, 2015 Share Posted November 24, 2015 Now that really IS a rip-off. How the %*£@ can they be regarded as charities when they exist purely to 'educate' the already well provided for? It wasn't always so. When the Government Assisted Places Scheme was in existence, a fair few kids from poorer backgrounds (myself included) were able to benefit from a far better standard of education in a private school, at reduced cost, as opposed to the rather p*ss-poor State standards that existed in my area back then. The Scheme was one of the first things to be scrapped by ZANu-Labour (a fair few of whom had also benefitted from it) when coming to power in 1997, thus ensuring that private education would henceforth only be for, as you put it, the already well-provided for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sweeps Posted November 24, 2015 Share Posted November 24, 2015 I'd even suggest that the large organised national appeals such as children in need and Red Nose Day take away folks free will at deciding which charities to support. All those so called celebrities getting paid for their involvement with these appeals and I do know that small local charities suffer from a drop in donations as its 'cool' to do children in need and perhaps get on TV. Your also putting the decision making of who gets a grant I to the hands of a few folk who decide grant giving priorities.our priority this year are guide dogs with my ne leg on lifeboats, or something as obscure. There also a chance for any con artist who owns a bucket to go out and make a bit of cash. How do you know that all the money collected is sent in? Now with most regulated charities boxes have to be sealed numbered, opened and counted in the presence of at least two people and a return made to the local council. I would suggest that Red Nose Day and children in need dare not even suggest at the amount of money they think goes missing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bernard Lamb Posted November 24, 2015 Share Posted November 24, 2015 Now that really IS a rip-off. How the %*£@ can they be regarded as charities when they exist purely to 'educate' the already well provided for? steve Oh dear. Father killed in WW11 in Normandy. Step father was a guest of the Japanese during the same war. Grandparents lived in a tied cottage. Well they did until grandfather was killed in WW1. The family were allowed to stay on until the kids had grown up to be old enough to start work with the company. At age 11 I received a scholarship to a local public school. We did not all start out well provided for. I like that kind of charity. Bernard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 24, 2015 Share Posted November 24, 2015 Why should anyone give their money for nothing to pay someone elses wages? Because things need to be done, people need to eat and bored heiresses of independent means are thin on the ground. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arthur Posted November 24, 2015 Share Posted November 24, 2015 It's not the paying of a fair salary to charity workers which sticks in the craw, it's the payment of corporate levels of remuneration to senior executives and the provision of lavish, corporate style, headquarters. I undestand, though am yet to be convinced, of the arguement that highly paid executives deliver higher levels of income. The rise of such executives seems to have coincided with some of the more irritating and reprehensible fund raising methods adopted. Something else to further reduce the reputation of some charities in the eyes of many. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Revolution Mike Posted November 25, 2015 RMweb Gold Share Posted November 25, 2015 By then it is too late! The damage has been done and the regulator generally ineffective and toothless. But that is a cop out - if people don't use the state's regulator then they can hardly complain if it is toothless.... Charitable status is a funny thing - most public schools have it, for instance. Education is one of the obvious eligible criteria for charitable status (and why shouldn't it be). Public schools still have to pass the same public benefit test as all charities (and despite accusations of weak regulation the CC has been well-known to get public schools to demonstrate public benefit). Why should anyone give their money for nothing to pay someone elses wages? Because they are not giving "money for nothing" but to allow the charity to perform its charitable objectives. Just because someone works for a charity does not mean that suddenly their mortgage disappears or food miraculously appears on the table. Given the large size of some of the charities they are undoubtedly like running a large company* so why should staff not be paid a reasonable salary? * we can have a discussion about whether UK society should rely on charities to provide substantial societal functions (that is another discussion) but the reality is that does. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Purley Oaks Posted November 25, 2015 Share Posted November 25, 2015 Oh dear. Father killed in WW11 in Normandy. Step father was a guest of the Japanese during the same war. Grandparents lived in a tied cottage. Well they did until grandfather was killed in WW1. The family were allowed to stay on until the kids had grown up to be old enough to start work with the company. At age 11 I received a scholarship to a local public school. We did not all start out well provided for. I like that kind of charity. Bernard Absolutely a good thing, Bernard Education is one of the obvious eligible criteria for charitable status (and why shouldn't it be). Public schools still have to pass the same public benefit test as all charities (and despite accusations of weak regulation the CC has been well-known to get public schools to demonstrate public benefit). but wouldn't it make public relations sense if Eton, Harrow and Westminster et al told us how many disadvantaged children each was helping? It's not just about opening your swimming pool or playing fields for use by the general public. Horsetan, wasn't there something called the Direct Grant Scheme that was used by public schools until the 1970s? Mal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ozexpatriate Posted November 25, 2015 Share Posted November 25, 2015 I dare not even introduce the maze that are the 501( c )( 3 ) and 501( c )( 4 ) tax code designations in the US tax code and their unintended consequences. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold chris p bacon Posted November 25, 2015 RMweb Gold Share Posted November 25, 2015 As someone who's wife works for a charity I can tell you that it is not a gold lined job with fat cars and a key to the executive toilet. It's one pay rise in 6 years and a salary that is 75% less that what she could get elsewhere for a similar job. There are no such things as BMW company cars and the chief exec is not on some huge salary but gets a decent amount in return for doing a pretty good job. Why does she do it ? because she enjoys it and thinks it's a worthwhile cause and it has an impact on many peoples lives but they probably don't even know it. Quite how you can judge a charity because of the cars in the car park is quite beyond me, does anyone ever think that the partner of the employee is the one who purchased the car.. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonny777 Posted November 25, 2015 Share Posted November 25, 2015 Hmmmm.... Maybe your chief exec is not on some huge salary, but others seem to be:- These are all registered charities and their chief exec's pay; Nuffield Health - £770,000 Wellcome Trust - £590,000 Childrens Investment Trust - £350,000 Church Commissioners - £330,000 Save The Children - £260,000 Cancer Reasearch - £220,000 Red Cross - £200,000 Canal and River Trust (?) - £190,000 British Heart Foundation - £180,000 Age UK - £180,000 http://www.thirdsector.co.uk/charity-pay-study-highest-earners/management/article/1335060 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.