Why you should question all charities before giving

[JagLover]

FredericRobinson said:

'Together, they employ more than a million staff'

One in 30 working people in the UK works for a charity? Don't believe that for a second

You have to remember that many charities are quasi-governmental in that they are dependent on Central/Local government for all or part of their funding. In many cases they should really be counted as part of local government employment.

[s2kjock]

mph1977 said:

Rick101 said:

I was quite surprised to see H4H now has its own clothing line in Debenhams.

Its closer to a business with efficient tax arrangements than a charity IMO.

A Business with efficient tax arrsngements and no extractive shareholders is exactly what a charity is, the bar / gate to entry is fulfilling the charitable purposes test.

Charities will often set up separate trading operations to raise funding - profits are gifted to the charity to be used to help the charity meet its charitable objectives. These are of course run as businesses, with commercial outputs.

The charity itself should be run in a manner to ensure it makes effective use of the resources at its disposal ie in a "business-like" fashion. The outputs, however, are charitable rather than commercial.

[mph1977]

s2kjock said:

mph1977 said:

Rick101 said:

I was quite surprised to see H4H now has its own clothing line in Debenhams.

Its closer to a business with efficient tax arrangements than a charity IMO.

A Business with efficient tax arrsngements and no extractive shareholders is exactly what a charity is, the bar / gate to entry is fulfilling the charitable purposes test.

Charities will often set up separate trading operations to raise funding - profits are gifted to the charity to be used to help the charity meet its charitable objectives. These are of course run as businesses, with commercial outputs.

The charity itself should be run in a manner to ensure it makes effective use of the resources at its disposal ie in a "business-like" fashion. The outputs, however, are charitable rather than commercial.

That does depend upon the charitable objects of the organisation in question, for instance St John Ambulance 'commercial' ambulance operations and the training services part of SJA are not seperate trading compniesas they fall within the charitable purposes of the organisation , it;s just thenature of that work means it is conducted on a commercial basis. Event cover is even more 'fun' from an admin t/ trading point of view as volunteer provided cover for events run by businesses / councils ( i.e. a lot of events ) are charged on a 'surplus generating' basis vs at cost cover for other charitable organisations or less than cost cover where the objects of the organiser and their legal basis permit this.

[gpo746]

Inkyfingers said:

I have worked closely with the charity sector for the last decade and would echo those who draw a line between small, local charities, and the big nationals. This is of course a generalisation, but one borne out of plenty of experience....

The local charities are often staffed by volunteers, and those that are paid are on a pretty low salary, they often have a close personal relationship with the charity, or at least the area it operates in. Meeting typically took place in the hospice reception, a cramped offices, or often a dingy store room above one of their shops.

When dealing with national charities it is very different. The staff are mainly graduates, on a very clear career ladder. Meetings typically took place in grand board rooms in expensive central London buildings. Their priority was branding and the raising of cold, hard cash. They seemed utterly disconnected with the people that they are supposed to be helping

Now I appreciate there are benefits to the second approach, it's often a more efficient way to raise money. There were exceptions, but my overwhelming feeling was that they had become more concerned with sustaining themselves and often with promoting their political viewpoints, rather than the basic aims which the people giving their hard earned cash assume that they are spending their money on.

There is a place for charity, but large parts of the UK charity sector is in great danger of becoming bloated, self serving and, most importantly, an advert for people not to give money.

One of the best posts I have read in a while on here.
Pretty honest views as well

[BlackLabel]

rich888 said:

I stopped contributing to charities some years ago after a conversation with a manager of one of the more well known charities who said they no longer focused on selling second-hand clothing and had instead focused on selling new merchandise which offered higher margins due to the fact that they paid no rates for their high-street shops and their staff were volunteers. She was of course earning plenty and the upper management were on loads more. Is this where charity stops?.

This must be a tough pill to swallow for neighbouring small businesses who sell similar things as the charity shops do. It's hardly a level playing field.

[anonymous-user]

BlackLabel said:

rich888 said:

I stopped contributing to charities some years ago after a conversation with a manager of one of the more well known charities who said they no longer focused on selling second-hand clothing and had instead focused on selling new merchandise which offered higher margins due to the fact that they paid no rates for their high-street shops and their staff were volunteers. She was of course earning plenty and the upper management were on loads more. Is this where charity stops?.

This must be a tough pill to swallow for neighbouring small businesses who sell similar things as the charity shops do. It's hardly a level playing field.

....which is quite an issue on some high streets.

[eccles]

I remember a few years ago there was an 'expose' of charities overheads.The article listed various charities and how much of £1 was actually spent on the cause that the charity was set up to help. Most of the large national/international charities had overheads up in the 60p to 85p in the pound. There were the usual excuses why some CEO's were on many hundreds of thousands salary.

[anonymous-user]

The big charities have become monsters that are just obsessed with getting money and use all sorts of below the belt tactics to keep the money flowing in.

Where does it stop? Buying petrol tonight a charity demand pops up on the card machine, do I want to donate 25p to charity WTF. No idea what charity and what a devious tactic, no wonder I hate the nasty little fkers...

If these people want to behave like big companies they can pay the same level of tax that companies have too.

[mph1977]

gottans said:

<snip>

If these people want to behave like big companies they can pay the same level of tax that companies have too.

a Large Charity is a large company,

the tax benefits cahrities get is at the cost of layer of extra regulation, restrictions on trading practices where the charitable purpose includes 'trading' activities ( if the charitable purposes doesn;t include trading then a seperate none charitable company has to be set up which is wholly owned by the charity) and having to demonstrate compliance with it's charitable objectives at all times.

Gottans it appears you are yet another person who does not understand what a charity actually is.

[s2kjock]

eccles said:

I remember a few years ago there was an 'expose' of charities overheads.The article listed various charities and how much of £1 was actually spent on the cause that the charity was set up to help. Most of the large national/international charities had overheads up in the 60p to 85p in the pound. There were the usual excuses why some CEO's were on many hundreds of thousands salary.

I'd love to see how these figures are calculated. Particularly as "overheads" is not a term used in charity accounts.

I also don't think any charity chief execs are on "many hundreds of thousands" of salary.

[eccles]

s2kjock said:

eccles said:

I remember a few years ago there was an 'expose' of charities overheads.The article listed various charities and how much of £1 was actually spent on the cause that the charity was set up to help. Most of the large national/international charities had overheads up in the 60p to 85p in the pound. There were the usual excuses why some CEO's were on many hundreds of thousands salary.

I'd love to see how these figures are calculated. Particularly as "overheads" is not a term used in charity accounts.

I also don't think any charity chief execs are on "many hundreds of thousands" of salary.

Overheads is my term. You could use expenses or whatever term you like. What you think about the chief execs salary is up to you, I remember what I read.

[darreni]

Is there a legal minimum that must be used for charitable causes - from the funds raised- for a business to be classified a charity?

[Terminator X]

I got a call today from a "donation chasing" company employed by a charity to chase donations of course. Apparently they were chasing £1.3m and would be paid a fee of £300k!

TX.

[gpo746]

The post of mph whilst accurate its tone may to several people pretty much nail why people are becoming more and more disillusioned with larger charities

[thehawk]

I've noticed that just about every person that has a relative who dies before their time now seems to set up a charity.

I give directly to smaller charities where I can see my money making a difference.

[Don]

I rarely give money to charity.

I prefer to give my time instead. I am actually able to do this and I know exactly how my time is being used and how it helps people.

My thing is preventing road accidents so I have volunteered for the IAM for years. Can't do so much now but I will get back to it in the future...

[mph1977]

gpo746 said:

The post of mph whilst accurate its tone may to several people pretty much nail why people are becoming more and more disillusioned with larger charities

So, in fact, what you are actually saying is the ignorance of the unwashed masses means Charities should deliberateky hobble themselves financially and they should set out to deliver a shambolic and amateurish service by using ill trained volunteers and paid staff who have a private income or are retired police /fire /military who can't get a real job ?

Despite this being illegal in the eyes of the Law and the Charity Commissionerd

[Rick101]

mph1977 said:

it appears you are yet another person who does not understand what a charity actually is.

I understand what it is, that's why I do not give money.
The issue is the all encompassing word 'charity'. Its covers what I and many others perceive to be genuine charities as well as the big businesses. There should be some clear separation between the two.

I know you've covered the technical definition above but 99 in 100 people won't know or understand that. They'll be asked for money for 'charity' and quite often will give something 1 because they believe their contribution will help somebody and 2 often out of embarrassment and guilt.

I used to date one of those birds that went round nightclubs selling those manky old roses for £2, I'm not sure they do it anymore but that was for charity wasn't it. You're a bad person if you don't help those less fortunate.

She used to make £200 a night easy. I can assure you very little if any at all went to the 'charity'

It's deceptive and fraudulent in my opinion. It ruins it for the genuine charities out there that really give all they can to help their beneficiary.

I'm not saying the big boys shouldn't continue, just that they should not be coming under the charities umbrella.

[Digga]

s2kjock said:

I also don't think any charity chief execs are on "many hundreds of thousands" of salary.

IMHO the chief execs of the larger, better known charities will have been on six-figure remuneration packages for at least the last twenty years. I know of at least one and that charity was nowhere near foremost in the public eye.

[oyster]

NicD said:

I only have a problem with waste and duplication.

I do really get angry when a so called celebrity exhorts me to give.
First I think, are they getting paid, and how much is the advert costing to screen. Then I think, you are worth an awful lot more than me and most people watching this. If you think its such a good idea, why not just give a big donation yourself.

Numbers aren't your strong suit are they?