Skip to comments.The Great British rake-off...what really happens to the billions YOU donate to charity
Posted on 11/16/2014 2:17:25 AM PST by Fenhalls555
The figures are astonishing. There are more than 195,289 registered charities in the UK that raise and spend close to £80 billion a year. Together, they employ more than a million staff more than our car, aerospace and chemical sectors and make 13 billion asks for money every year, the equivalent of 200 for each of us in the UK.
But many charities have become hungry monsters, needing ever more of our money to feed their own ambitions. And while registered charities claim that almost 90p in every pound donated is spent on charitable activities, many spend at least half their income on management, strategy development, campaigning and fundraising not what most of us would consider good causes.
My book, The Great Charity Scandal, is not an attack on charity, but an attack on charities that put their own interests first.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
The thing that really gets me is the salaries for some of the top officers in these charities. $500K/year seems to be the norm with many going upwards of double that.
This doesn’t seem to be isolated in charities, either. There are quite a few PACs out there where the principals take this much, PLUS consulting fees, elaborate travel pay, etc.
That’s why I carefully select my charities like the Rainbow Coalition.
The Rainbow Coalition? LOL!
That, of course, as well as The Barack Obama Presidential Library and Museum.
One of the biggest rip offs here in the US is United Way. Of every dollar they take in nearly .90 cents goes towards self perpetuation.
I remember, when I volunteered for Help the Aged in the UK, just after leaving school, being shocked to discover that the manager was a paid employee, rather than a volunteer. Surely there are people out there, retired former managers, who could this on a rotational basis?
Yeah, but there’s a big difference between a PAC and a charity.
And let me ask my question again, this “Are You Ready for Hillary” thing-y, who’s running it? What happens to the money they’ve collected if she doesn’t run?
Money in politics....equiring minds....just askin’!
To my mind, a PAC and a charity are functionally the same thing. Both beg for money, whether for a political ideology or spiritual, social and the like.
Both profess the things each is striving for and prepared to do (if you contribute). Much of that given is siphoned off for salaries, overhead, consulting and a host of other things not specifically contributory to the end goal.
The only true charity I’ve found so far is the Salvation Army. Even though their officers, etc. a paid, it is not extravagant.
Suppose everyone has goto earn a living. It isn’t like doctors and nurses do good work and earn money from it.
Well, I agree with you that they are functionally the same. If we give money to the Red Cross we expect they’ll help people in disasters, if we give money to the R party or the D party we expect they’ll try and elect Rs and Ds.
But one does think that those running a charity are do-gooders while we know those who run PACs are just power hungry whores.
That’s what I see as the difference, but of course they are pretty much all power hungry whores.
Story of my life: I should have been a power hungry whore, but instead I became a chump.
Most “do-gooders” want somebody else’s money with which to “do good.”
“The thing that really gets me is the salaries for some of the top officers in these charities. $500K/year seems to be the norm with many going upwards of double that.”
I recall a story a few years ago in the ny post that revealed a new york charity that was raking in 30 million a year, its CEO was being paid a salary of 900 thousand a year.
The other thing is clothes drives for the needy. Most organizations don't give the clothes you donate to the needy. They either bundle them and sell them for pennies per bundle or sell them at thrift shops. Then they pay everyone who runs the scam. Then they dole out the little bit that's left to the charity.
Moral of the story...if you want to give money to victims, give the money directly to the victims. If I have clothes to donate, I'd rather leave them at a bus stop with directions to whomever finds them to give them to friends who could use them. If they sell them, so what? It's better a poor person gains from my donation than some over paid CEO
re: The Salvation Army. I was surprised to find out that they don’t always give clothes donations directly to the poor. They sell them at thrift stores, and not necessarily at prices or in locations the truly poor can afford. And the people running the stores are paid employees. And they pay rent on the stores etc. etc.
“...Moral of the story...if you want to give money to victims, give the money directly to the victims. If I have clothes to donate, I’d rather leave them at a bus stop with directions to whomever finds them to give them to friends who could use them. If they sell them, so what? It’s better a poor person gains from my donation than some over paid CEO”
Nice summary ... and spot on.
The Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation get an A+, while the National 4H Foundation and the PetSmart Foundation get an A. And so on.
Charities are a big business, and many colleges will provide degrees in “nonprofit” management.
I agree that the Salvation Army is a good charity worthy of our donations. But we also donate to several smaller, mostly local, and mostly all-volunteer organizations. I’m permanently sour by the large “bundler” organizations such as United Way, Red Cross and the like. I’m even skeptical about the large medical funds. So much of people’s hard-earned money goes not to the cause, but to overhead.
Any idea how Wounded Worrier’s manages it’s money?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.