Does anyone donate £2 a month to charity?

fini said:
All charities have to make their financial records available.

The NSPCC, for example, this year spent:
£30 million on income generation
£183,000 on leasing vehicles
£8000 on trustee expenditure
£1.5 million on divisional management
£3 million on central management and admin
£4.5 million on premises, legal and support costs
£7 million on pensions

I could go on, but already that's nearly £50 million raised that wasn't spent on children.
Click to expand...

Thats quite interesting tbh, but I knew that my money would go some way to funding the whole charity actually running.
Do they also list how much money they actually raise, giving us a total that is spent directly on children?

You also have to remember that some staff need to be paid, otherwise most of the service wouldnt run or would be severely limited.
Things like premises also includes call centres etc
 
fini said:
IIRC without bringing up the report again they pulled in just shy of £150 million so they're spending a third of everything they receive on admin. So for every £100 that you give £30 is immediately diverted to things like leasing cars and the £8000 the trustees spend on tea and biscuits each year.

It is likely that businesses of comparative sizes also have such large overheads, but when I buy something from a business my objective is to own that product. When I give money to charity my objective is not to pay towards someone's pension.
Click to expand...


Not quite £30 really is it, as like I said, some of it goes towards being able to give the service.
Also, £30m on revenue generation is a lot, but that brings in £150m! more than worth it surely?
 
Morba said:
Also, £30m on revenue generation is a lot, but that brings in £150m! more than worth it surely?
Click to expand...
Well I guess that depends on how much money they'd get in if they spent nothing on revenue generation this year - you're presuming they'd receive nothing, which seems unlikely to me.

Either way I'm not saying that charities are misusing their money, but that:
  1. millions and millions could be saved if certain charities were directly funded through the government (in the NSPCCs case they would save at least £30 million as they wouldn't have to do any income generation activities).
  2. When I give to charity I want to give towards charitable work, not admin - however necessary that admin may be.
 
fini said:
Well I guess that depends on how much money they'd get in if they spent nothing on revenue generation this year - you're presuming they'd receive nothing, which seems unlikely to me.


Either way I'm not saying that charities are misusing their money, but that:
  1. millions and millions could be saved if certain charities were directly funded through the government (in the NSPCCs case they would save at least £30 million as they wouldn't have to do any income generation activities).
  2. When I give to charity I want to give towards charitable work, not admin - however necessary that admin may be.
Click to expand...

No no, i would never presume they would get nothing. But would they get £100m?
I agree, funded through the government would save £30m, but what implications could it have?

I agree, I would want my money to go directly to helping the children, which is why I am also looking to be a volenteer (really should look up how to spell that!) :]
 
Anyone else sick to death of those stupid averts about that charity that wants to help donkeys! OMFG I could murder the people that put that on the air, in fact I'd murder a donkey and slap them around with it /rant
 
it stops beeing a charity and becomes a tax as soon as it is forced.
some people struggle to cope already without more of their wages beeing syphoned off
 
I agree with you on principle, fini. Especially concerning 'charities' who seem to make a lot of money but do little with it aside from bolster their own pockets. However, regarding the NSPCC one could just as easily say that without them spending, say, 30% of income on overheads, 70% of it (tens of millions) wouldn't be able to be spent helping vulnerable children.

I certainly disagree with people getting very large salaries, luxury cars and plush offices while working for a charity, but a normal basic wage and pension is fine by me if it provides a dedicated worker who otherwise wouldn't exist. It's a fine line, though, I definitely agree.

It's half my argument with the RSPCA. Why spend £22m on new plush headquarters and £100,000pa on one director's wages alone etc? If they're that dedicated why not just run it from a basic brick building and regional portacabins, with £20,000 salary for all? Plenty enough to live on in most cases, and they're doing it for the cause after all, surely? ;)

Then again we could say the same for MPs. If they're that passionate about serving their constituents, why not massively cut costs and 'expenses' and put them all on a basic rate in line with the rest of the country? We'd soon see who wanted to serve, and who just wanted to line pockets imho.
 
arknor said:
it stops beeing a charity and becomes a tax as soon as it is forced.
some people struggle to cope already without more of their wages beeing syphoned off
Click to expand...

Perhaps, but some of these things the government really should be doing. The NHS is paid for by taxation because it's in society's best interest. Is it not also in society's best interest that you are saved when your boat sinks or that children aren't abused?

If we say that the average person gives £10 to charity each year (as an example) then would it really make any difference if that was given after you paid your taxes or at the time that you paid your taxes? If we can say that one charity can save at least £30 million through becoming 'nationalised' consider quite how much could be saved if most the major ones were - hundreds of millions.
 
Naff all, i have wife and kids to support, a morgage and childcare. Charity begins at home and thats where my money goes.
 
I very rarely ever give to charity, with over 50% going to admin costs I cant see the point. If i was going to do anything I would volunteer my time instead of lining some directors pockets.
 
I don't get why people give to animal charities over human ones if they can only afford to give to one. I'd much rather see a cat die than a human. Fair enough if you can afford to do both but just seems silly in my eyes to do other wise. In some countries they eat dogs and cats etc.
 
dangerstat said:
Anyone else sick to death of those stupid averts about that charity that wants to help donkeys! OMFG I could murder the people that put that on the air, in fact I'd murder a donkey and slap them around with it /rant
Click to expand...

funniest thing ive read ALL day, nice one!!:D:D:D

EDIT: i cant actually stop laughing
 
Lord-Jaffa said:
I very rarely ever give to charity, with over 50% going to admin costs I cant see the point. If i was going to do anything I would volunteer my time instead of lining some directors pockets.
Click to expand...

That is an absolutely ridiculous statement. Don't give to charities with 50% admin costs then! Do some research into them yourself without listening to media hype about a small number of charities that don't spend their donations wisely.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom