Too much charity cash? 16 February 2005 at 2:40PM in Money Saving Polls 14 replies 3.2K views

Former_MSE_Dan

Poll started 15.2.05

Too much charity cash? It's rumoured charities such as the Red Cross are struggling to spend the enormous £365million given so far to the
Tsunami appeal (and rules state it must be spent within 3 years). If this is the case, what do you think should be done with the extra cash?

A. Return it to those who donated it
B. Spend it on disaster relief elsewhere
C. Just spend, spend, spend in the Tsunami area

Click reply to discuss, or here to vote

SnowyOwl_2

I think they should set up a trust fund so that other charities can apply for some of this "spare" cash. Apparently some charities, including some active in the developing nations in Africa have noticed a drop in their income. The money needs to be redistributed to save lives and help people who are suffering, regardless of where they are.

If people who have donated really don't want their money to go to anything other than Tsunami then let them have it back, as long as they can prove that they gave it in the first place, but deduct an admin fee from it so it doesn't cost the charity anything to do this. The Government would also have to be refunded any Gift Aid.

Finally, I think a further option would be to amend the "spend it within three years" rule. It is going to take longer than three years for the region to recover. Spending to a three year deadline could encourage wastefulness, shoddiness and rushed projects while the work and plans need to evolve more slowly than this so that it is done properly.

Foxy

i think the 3 year dedline should be lifted on what was a major disaster as will tske longer thsn 3 years to recover and people may not be that eager to give when not as much at the front of their memories

rchddap1

It all depends on what the charities are spending the tsunami cash on. For example, is the money helping people to rebuild their homes, businesses etc...or it is just providing temporary shelters and food to those who need it. A lot of my friends think that their donations will be used for the former. But how many news reports you seen that show people collecting cash to buy building materials for their homes, or to buy goods to re build their business.

However, my friends certainly wouldn't want the money back. THere are many people across the world that need help and they would expect that they money to help those people should those in the Tsunami region not require it.

baysieboy

BE AWARE: My credit card company took an extra £50 after my phone-in contribution. They are supposedly refunding it! I will check my next statement carefully.

trafalgar_2

SnowyOwl wrote:

Finally, I think a further option would be to amend the "spend it within three years" rule. It is going to take longer than three years for the region to recover. Spending to a three year deadline could encourage wastefulness, shoddiness and rushed projects while the work and plans need to evolve more slowly than this so that it is done properly.

I believe this is the way the charity is proceeding and have applied to extend the time scale ,as long as they are allowed to of course.

JayS_3

I think one area where some of it should be spent is the earthquake in Bam, Iran, which happened exactly one year earlier on Boxing Day 2003. Something like 30,000/40,000 people died in that one city, they were promised aid but by Christmas 2004 they had not had those promises fulfilled. Just before Christmas a campaign to get the funds promised was started, but got lost when the Tsunami struck.

Unfortunately, the Bam earthquake was just as devistating, but more localised, therefore the publicity died out.

The_Oracle

Having read in the paper today that we have no stock pile of vaccine in preparation for the Chicken Flu epidemic could we not have some of the cash back to purchase vaccine as the government have no contingency plans for this global problem, unlike other countries who are ready for the worse. Can't some of our donated cash help our people in the event of this reaching our shores.

RSAZ

Although I feel sorry for all of the people who lost their lives and homes at Christmas, I think our government (who gave £5 million?) should have sent less to the disaster fund and spent some money on charities in Britain.

There are plenty of people in this country who need help - Hospitals, certain researches into illnesses, Old people and the like.

I know I may seem heartless (I did send money to the disaster fund and so did my children), but help people in this country first. After all we pay taxes and keep Tony Blair in power, I think we should have had a say in how much we donated to this fund.

furrypig

I have friends working for aid agencys and the Tsunami has meant aid workers have left other very needy areas (ie in Africa) to go to Asia also there is no or little funding to many of the ongoing 'disasters' (eg poverty, starvation , lack of basic human rights/needs etc etc). Generally it is felt there is too much money and they are unsure what to do with it.

I would not want my money back personally but would want it used in other needy areas in the world that all the major charities making up the fund are involved in.

Trow

It would surely be impossible to give it back - how would you decide which of the millions of donaters should receive money back?

I think the money should be used where possible for the tsunami and any 'excess' (including bank interest on the tsunami funds) should be used in the areas that have suffered a loss of funding/air workers as a direct result of the tsunami appeal and relief work.