[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/phpbb/session.php on line 585: sizeof(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/phpbb/session.php on line 641: sizeof(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable
Well-Said. - Page 3 - Carers UK Forum

Well-Said.

Share information, support and advice on all aspects of caring.
Sorry Charles I think you are being too simplistic. Poorer people may respond generously to specific fundraising campaigns but it's important to remember that the regular donors to charities are the " comfortably off" who have standing orders and direct debits- quite often to a number of charities.
Actually, I don't agree. While the "comfortably off" may have standing orders, etc., that number has dropped considerably in the last year or two - the majority of charities have had difficult years in that regard.

But I've been talking about fair shares, and that's a matter of scale. Many people who are well off give far less in proportion to their income than others who are less well off. When I was involved with a small national charity some years ago (as an unpaid trustee) we received about £750,000 from donations - of which just over half was from one preson. Sounds impressive until you realise that the majority of the remaining donations were from £25 here, £50 there. One mega-rich person handed over a very welcome £350k. But most of the money came from others who were at the lower end of the financial scale. Who gave the most? Those who could ill afford £20 or the one who got a nice tax break on £350k?
"The Common Good".its a simple concept.i feel the fact is in a decent society its clear that government cannot fund everything.charities are very much better sometimes.

Is it good to have,as now,"Minimum" universal standards which,too often,as with the NHS,fail the weakest?.

The state has failed.we all have a duty to our comunity,and if we think not,fine,for those who need help,"Are there no Workhouses?",or the modern counterpart.


The rich have a duty,as we do.
Some people are able to give directly where they see a need. In the past I have lived in Africa, or visited, and been able to help somebody knowing the money is going to a specific family or cause. The trouble now is that many of us have seen what happens to funds given to large charities with the expenses of those administering them and the poor distribution methods. And if we have lived in the countries receiving aid we have seen how very little of what is given actually reaches those most in distress, and how much ends up with the ruling elite, or on the black market. You only have to look at the large amounts collected for various disasters in recent years and the fact that according to reports those funds have not always been allocated. Also a look at the wealth and lifestyle of the rulers of so-called third world countries, and the abject poverty of many of their fellow countrymen, is enough to make anyone think twice.
Some of our administrative costs are forced on us and made more burdensome by government. Charities have to comply with company law (if they are a business, as most are these days) and charity law. Nowadays if a charity wants to make constitutional changes it has to seek permission from both Companies House and the Charity Commission. All of which adds to the administrative burden.

Another example: submitting annual returns has to be done to both - and at least 75% of the information required by both is identical. The same accounts are submitted, the same details about Trustees (company directors), and have to be input separately. And heaven forbid you have to answer a complicated call in the middle of a submission - you may lose your connection and have to start again. As I did. Twice. Image
Actually, I don't agree. While the "comfortably off" may have standing orders, etc., that number has dropped considerably in the last year or two - the majority of charities have had difficult years in that regard.
Ye I agree charities are suffering at the moment, but then again we all know some of the wages that the full time staff receive! And how little actually gets to the people they are supposed to help.

Everyone in the country is trying to protect there lifestyle, the Rich and poor. Everyone wants more money to improve there life's.

You are saying lets punish the rich for being successful, Well tell that to the small business man with 20 staff that need the rich to buy his product or service. Tell that to the businesses that sell or provide services to the small business man and his staff, and so on.

Like it or not we need the rich and well off to have money and spend it. And they do like to spend it, and show off.

Or we can punish the rich and have less jobs, and have a large civil service to employ the unemployed. everyone's happy?

I think that's being tried before! It's called Communism and we all know how well that turned out!
Actually, I don't agree. While the "comfortably off" may have standing orders, etc., that number has dropped considerably in the last year or two - the majority of charities have had difficult years in that regard.
Ye I agree charities are suffering at the moment, but then again we all know some of the wages that the full time staff receive! And how little actually gets to the people they are supposed to help.
Sorry I do not. Most full-time charity employees barely earn the average wage, the majority of charity staff from CEOs down could earn more in the private and public sector, they choose to work for charities because they believe in their charitable aims, not to enrich themselves, and I am not aware of any charity which puts enriching its staff before its beneficiaries.

Ye I agree charities are suffering at the moment, but then again we all know some of the wages that the full time staff receive! And how little actually gets to the people they are supposed to help.


Sorry I do not. Most full-time charity employees barely earn the average wage, the majority of charity staff from CEOs down could earn more in the private and public sector, they choose to work for charities because they believe in their charitable aims, not to enrich themselves, and I am not aware of any charity which puts enriching its staff before its beneficiaries.

Take a look at this

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... arity.html
No thanks, I prefer newspapers that tell the truth. But charities are a form of business with primarily social objectives, and are run by trustees who can derive no benefit from their efforts, thats all. Some are highly commercial in their approach to fundraising and wish to appoint top-notch staff who are good at raising money, others are less so. If you dont like them, don't give, or set up your own charity; its that simple really.

As for the rich and poor, they will always be with us: the key thing is getting the balance right between the State, the private and not-for profit sectors. I choose to bank with and borrow my mortgage from mutuals and the Co-op; thats my choice. Right now IMHO the State is far too large, it is suffocating us all.
No thanks, I prefer newspapers that tell the truth. But charities are a form of business with primarily social objectives, and are run by trustees who can derive no benefit from their efforts, thats all. Some are highly commercial in their approach to fundraising and wish to appoint top-notch staff who are good at raising money, others are less so. If you dont like them, don't give, or set up your own charity; its that simple really.
Just google it, The Daily Mail is not the only paper that's run the Story.
As for the rich and poor, they will always be with us]

I totally agree with you there
I prefer my information to come from a reputable source rather than the tabloid press:

http://www.charity-commission.gov.uk/SH ... ryNumber=0