What charities do you donate to?

GOSH regularly - spent a while there as a nipper.

And a colleague ran an appeal for Hull Royal Infirmary's neo-natal intensive care unit after they saved her little girl. Life has mean't she can't carry the appeal on, but they got a few £ from me too.

Otherwise it's the usual RBL etc. at their annual appeal.
 
I donate enough via taxes. I as others don't trust where the money goes a lot of the time, so look after number one, and those around me instead.
 
Amongst one or two others my wife and I support compassionuk.org (sponsoring a child) and the anti-human-trafficking charity A21 Campain. Also a local infant loss charity which is close to our hearts.

We are either in direct contact with the charity or know people that work within these charities so are very confident our money goes where it states.
 
RoboCod said:
Working a big charity is a full time job that requires expertise, knowledge and tons of effort. I think CEOs are well entitled to decent pay for it. If they didn't get paid then they'd just work elsewhere and the charity would be run by a cluts. When we say 'CEO' though they must be evil fat cats, skimming money from the poor, right?

....
Click to expand...
Where several directors are £100k or thereabouts, and the chief exec takes £150k+, from a charity, it's not one I will support. Charities are entitled to pay that if they wish, and they may or may not be "fat cats", but my view is that it's unsupportable for a charity.

If you're happy to donate, knowing that, then good for you. But when it's my money I'm donating, it's my right to determine the criteria I use to determine who gets what ftom a limited pot, and my decision is that it'll do more good going where it doesn't require highly paid executives, or very expensive marketing campaigns.

Speak to people that run small charities and many will tell you it's hard get funds because massive campaigns from the "big boys" drown out their voices, and there's no way they can compete with that. So I choose to direct my limited support to where I think, pound for pound, it'll do most good and my view is that that's small, local charities that aren't funding expensive offices, expensive marketing efforts, and executive salaries of the order paid by many big charities. The big boys do pretty well without my little bit, and those struggling smaller charities really appreciate direct help without all the overhead.
 
RoboCod said:
Working a big charity is a full time job that requires expertise, knowledge and tons of effort. I think CEOs are well entitled to decent pay for it. If they didn't get paid then they'd just work elsewhere and the charity would be run by a cluts. When we say 'CEO' though they must be evil fat cats, skimming money from the poor, right?

I donate to a multitude of charities, straight from my pay.
Click to expand...

The CEO of the dogs trust paid himself (with bonuses) £250,000 of peoples donations last year.

Big charity is the new bankers gravy train.

I'm sure they're grateful for your donations though. They're worth it. :D

Edit: https://www.sundaypost.com/news/sca...pca-chiefs-216320-pay-deal-as-animals-suffer/ Here is another.

It's a sad fact now you have to really research a charity before giving to it.
 
Last edited:
Aldav said:
Where several directors are £100k or thereabouts, and the chief exec takes £150k+, from a charity, it's not one I will support. Charities are entitled to pay that if they wish, and they may or may not be "fat cats", but my view is that it's unsupportable for a charity.

If you're happy to donate, knowing that, then good for you. But when it's my money I'm donating, it's my right to determine the criteria I use to determine who gets what ftom a limited pot, and my decision is that it'll do more good going where it doesn't require highly paid executives, or very expensive marketing campaigns.

Speak to people that run small charities and many will tell you it's hard get funds because massive campaigns from the "big boys" drown out their voices, and there's no way they can compete with that. So I choose to direct my limited support to where I think, pound for pound, it'll do most good and my view is that that's small, local charities that aren't funding expensive offices, expensive marketing efforts, and executive salaries of the order paid by many big charities. The big boys do pretty well without my little bit, and those struggling smaller charities really appreciate direct help without all the overhead.
Click to expand...

How do you know how well your money does where? How do you know it does better at a small charity than at a well run large one? You don't. Of course small charities are going to tell you they need your money more than others, they all tell you this! No one is telling you how to donate, I'm just counter arguing the ZOMG RICH BOSSES TAKE ALL THE MONIES!!11 crew. These big successful charities don't really continue to be big and successful by being driven by some youth volunteer do they? It takes expertise and knowledge beyond what you and I know and without the pay to attract those skills they'd get full time jobs elsewhere.
 
RoboCod said:
How do you know how well your money does where? How do you know it does better at a small charity than at a well run large one? You don't. Of course small charities are going to tell you they need your money more than others, they all tell you this! No one is telling you how to donate, I'm just counter arguing the ZOMG RICH BOSSES TAKE ALL THE MONIES!!11 crew. These big successful charities don't really continue to be big and successful by being driven by some youth volunteer do they? It takes expertise and knowledge beyond what you and I know and without the pay to attract those skills they'd get full time jobs elsewhere.
Click to expand...
I know because I have direct contact with the charities, because I know what they spend on offices and exec pay, which is often nothing and certainly nowhere near £150k, and I know because in quite a few instances, the money is spent by me, on things they require and the goods or services are then provided rather than money. For example, a coach is required for an outing and I pay for the coach hire. In other cases, money goes 100% into specific project funds. So yeah, I do know where much of the money goes. I don't speak for anyone else that feels, as I do, that many charity executives take pay levels that are immoral, but I do veto contributions to those charities. It's my money and I donate it where I'm happy to donate it, which is almost exclusively not to mega-charities.
 
RoboCod said:
How do you know how well your money does where? How do you know it does better at a small charity than at a well run large one? You don't. Of course small charities are going to tell you they need your money more than others, they all tell you this! No one is telling you how to donate, I'm just counter arguing the ZOMG RICH BOSSES TAKE ALL THE MONIES!!11 crew. These big successful charities don't really continue to be big and successful by being driven by some youth volunteer do they? It takes expertise and knowledge beyond what you and I know and without the pay to attract those skills they'd get full time jobs elsewhere.
Click to expand...

I donate to my local animal shelter, I can visit it and see my money being spent by asking the staff and they show visitors new additions either animal or enclosures. :)

Being charitable isn't about milking all you can from it. If the CEO's really did work for the cause they are in charge of they would surely take a cut in their "liveable" wages (hell, most of us live on 10% of £200,000+) and let it ride in the charities resources. No no though, it's ok you need that Jaguar to get back and forth from your 5 bedroom detached house and the work place that needs funding by the publics generosity. At what point does it become public gullibility.

Like top banking they'll use the line "Well I'll just leave and make something else successful." Which is true, but does it mean that a charity should be held hostage to that when it flies in the face of the definition of charity?

Research where your money goes, it isn't hard. Big salaries in charity are unethical.
 
How many charities pay their bosses £200k+, except the ones that you've already mentioned and are being investigated?
 
I don't donate at the money (I did but cancelled when I left my previous job)

But looking at stuff like Band Aid makes me question where all the money goes to. Looks like nothing has changed since the 1970's and all that money going to Africa.
 
wnb said:
Charity is big business and I would not trust them with my money therefore I dont give to anyone.
Click to expand...


Same here. If I give £10 to a charity I expect all of the money to go to where it's needed and not office people.
 
I donate monthly by DD to NSPCC and RSPCA and bi-annually to St. Johns ambulance.
I do get spammed by phone and email from NSPCC and RSPCA and it does annoy me, so i delete emails without reading and fob the phone calls off.
Why? Because they ring and email existing donaters to pull on your heartstrings and try and get more money out of you. The stories are heartbreaking but i give the max amount that i can per month to charity so i don't need to be made to feel bad by charities i already give to (but i know they're desparate). I also donate to other charities throughout the year in varying amounts.
When we got married we had a charity box at the reception and asked for donations to Cystic Fibrosis Trust (my step-son has it) instead of wedding gifts.
That was nice.
It's good to give. :)

edit: just read the above posts showing the cynicism about donating to charities. Yes, i agree, fat cat bosses should be thinner, but if we stop giving then even less money gets through to those that truly need it.
 
Last edited:
Banzai_Joe said:
It's good to give. :)

edit: just read the above posts showing the cynicism about donating to charities. Yes, i agree, fat cat bosses should be thinner, but if we stop giving then even less money gets through to those that truly need it.
Click to expand...

Indeed. From the charity pay study...

Corporates vs charities: how do they compare?

The fashion retailer Asos has a turnover of £769m and pays its chief executive a total of £804,000, according to data from the remuneration advisory firm Patterson Associates. The charity Nuffield Health has comparable figures: its income is £662m and its highest-paid executive is in the £770,000-£780,000 pay band. Two other charities with executives paid in the £750,000-£860,000 range have much smaller incomes – St Andrew's Healthcare has £189m and the London Clinic £137m. The corporate services firm the Hogg Robinson Group has a turnover of £341m and pays its chief £594,000. Save the Children has almost the same turnover, but pays its chief between £130,000 and £140,000. Stanley Gibbons, the stamp collecting firm, has a turnover of £52m and pays its chief £397,000. Most charities with similar incomes pay less: Catch 22 and London Zoo have the same income as Stanley Gibbons and pay £120,000-£130,000 and £150,000-£160,000 respectively.
Click to expand...

So whilst some of the highest earners pay relative to what corporate pay is, many would deem those charities not to be true charities (lile Nuffield Health) and many of the mainstream charities pay much less compared to those with equivalent corporate turnovers. As is pointed out on the charity pay study site, all is needed is remuneration to be transparent, which it is more so than ever due to the matter coming under so much scrutiny.

Big charities operate like large corporate companies, they are complex and difficult to run. The outcome of which is millions in turnover.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom