Pensions

macaque_2

The growing list of UK time bombs just seems to grow by the day.

• Do I want to give to a charity to do good things? Probably yes.
• Do I want to give to a charity to fund their pension scheme? Almost certainly not.

http://www.pensions-insight.co.uk/charities-are-being-crushed-by-debt/1473249.article

Generali

macaque wrote: »

The growing list of UK time bombs just seems to grow by the day.

• Do I want to give to a charity to do good things? Probably yes.
• Do I want to give to a charity to fund their pension scheme? Almost certainly not.

http://www.pensions-insight.co.uk/charities-are-being-crushed-by-debt/1473249.article

It's an interesting article.

Defined benefits pensions are seen by some as morally superior to defined contributions ones. However, is it more ethical to give your staff a nice pension or to provide the services that your donors have donated for?

At work yesterday I was reading an actuarial piece saying that a girl born in 2014 can expect to live until 2110. If she retires in 2074 she'll be a cost to that pension scheme for 36 years!

Loughton_Monkey

macaque wrote: »

The growing list of UK time bombs just seems to grow by the day.

• Do I want to give to a charity to do good things? Probably yes.
• Do I want to give to a charity to fund their pension scheme? Almost certainly not.

http://www.pensions-insight.co.uk/charities-are-being-crushed-by-debt/1473249.article

Have you been on holiday in Mars?

The FS Pension time bomb has existed for the last 15 years or so, and most competent companies have dealt with it over those years.

What you are seeing here is an example of 'big' charities that sadly do not have the skills to run a whelk stall. I tend to dislike the larger charities who perhaps market well, but that comes at a huge cost, leaving a smaller proportion to distribute. Sadly, it is these larger charities that also tend to waste the money because they don't understand that half the 'aid' gets ripped off by the government/officials of said 'poor' country......

I tend to give only to specific charities who actually deliver the benefits themselves. Usually on a local basic. You know your money is well spent.

A potential exception to me was "Help for Heroes" until I learned that the charity was set up specifically to help serving men. The majority of the worst wounded were (understandably) 'retired' from the army due to ill health, and [unless changed very recently] your paraplegic with a chest full of medals and a bag full of "needs" gets two fingers from Help for Heroes.

Generali

Loughton_Monkey wrote: »

Have you been on holiday in Mars?

The FS Pension time bomb has existed for the last 15 years or so, and most competent companies have dealt with it over those years.

What you are seeing here is an example of 'big' charities that sadly do not have the skills to run a whelk stall. I tend to dislike the larger charities who perhaps market well, but that comes at a huge cost, leaving a smaller proportion to distribute. Sadly, it is these larger charities that also tend to waste the money because they don't understand that half the 'aid' gets ripped off by the government/officials of said 'poor' country......

I tend to give only to specific charities who actually deliver the benefits themselves. Usually on a local basic. You know your money is well spent.

A potential exception to me was "Help for Heroes" until I learned that the charity was set up specifically to help serving men. The majority of the worst wounded were (understandably) 'retired' from the army due to ill health, and [unless changed very recently] your paraplegic with a chest full of medals and a bag full of "needs" gets two fingers from Help for Heroes.

Is that because those pensioned out get help elsewhere? There's a limit to what every charity can do and this sounds a little like complaining that the RSPCA does nothing about child poverty.

Loughton_Monkey

Generali wrote: »

Is that because those pensioned out get help elsewhere? There's a limit to what every charity can do and this sounds a little like complaining that the RSPCA does nothing about child poverty.

I'm not sure.

OK, I'm prepared to believe that HFH would have told the truth on their website somewhere, but my understanding is that most people [until this was exposed] thought it would potentially help all injured servicemen.

As far as I know, RSPCA has "Animals" in its name and will tend to deal with all animals. HFH has "Heroes" in its name, without making it quite clear that the worst injured cannot continue serving and thus fall outside charitable help. The program I watched on this issue showed many discharged servicemen having to use NHS prosthetic limbs which are awful, and wait a long time for them too.

vivatifosi

Loughton_Monkey wrote: »

As far as I know, RSPCA has "Animals" in its name and will tend to deal with all animals. HFH has "Heroes" in its name, without making it quite clear that the worst injured cannot continue serving and thus fall outside charitable help. The program I watched on this issue showed many discharged servicemen having to use NHS prosthetic limbs which are awful, and wait a long time for them too.

OT for thread so apologies. HFH was set up to address a specific gap in funding. Prior to its formation, there was the British Legion. I know when my cousin was injured none of these charities existed. The need for them has grown out of the exponential growth in numbers of injured service people. Thanks to medical advances, people are surviving injuries that would have led to certain death before. But that comes at a cost and charities are behind the curve trying to meet demand. It isn't only decent prosthetics that are needed, but help and support with burns, blindness, brain injuries and PTSD for example. No charity can fund and do all of this, which is why it is worth seeking out others. Prince Harry's highlighting Walking With the Wounded is a great example and I hope they raise lots of funding. It is also hugely inspirational in showing how incredibly fit and driven someone with a disability can be. I think the Paralympics movement helps too.

grizzly1911

vivatifosi wrote: »

OT for thread so apologies. HFH was set up to address a specific gap in funding. Prior to its formation, there was the British Legion. I know when my cousin was injured none of these charities existed. The need for them has grown out of the exponential growth in numbers of injured service people. Thanks to medical advances, people are surviving injuries that would have led to certain death before. But that comes at a cost and charities are behind the curve trying to meet demand. It isn't only decent prosthetics that are needed, but help and support with burns, blindness, brain injuries and PTSD for example. No charity can fund and do all of this, which is why it is worth seeking out others. Prince Harry's highlighting Walking With the Wounded is a great example and I hope they raise lots of funding. It is also hugely inspirational in showing how incredibly fit and driven someone with a disability can be. I think the Paralympics movement helps too.

I am sure why charities should have to provide for key needs. Our politicians take the decision to enter these combat zones. It is a collateral cost of that intervention and should be met by the state.

We don't have Help Hide Nuclear Waste.

We should question whether we should intervene in the first place.

Generali

grizzly1911 wrote: »

I am sure why charities should have to provide for key needs. Our politicians take the decision to enter these combat zones. It is a collateral cost of that intervention and should be met by the state.

We don't have Help Hide Nuclear Waste.

We should question whether we should intervene in the first place.

The problem is that the British Government spends such a vast sum of money already that they can't spend on stuff like this which is where tax really should be spent.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_spending

The Aussie Government spends about 1/3rd of GDP, the UK's not too far short of half of GDP and it really is hard to see what we miss out on.

I think the big thing is that the UK taxpayer is happy to subsidise poverty to an extent that the Aussie one isn't. Our minimum wage is high (about $20-$25/hour for an adult) but you don't get much state help beyond that. It's pretty much impossible to live off the dole long-term so people don't, they go and get a job.

Kennyboy66

The article highlights Wedgewood Museum Trust, which was a particularly poor example, as the main issue here was not that a charity had final salary pensions, but that the trust had not been set up in the first place. Th collection had not been correctly placed into a charity.

It's really hard to credit that some charities still have defined benefit schemes.

Andy_L

Loughton_Monkey wrote: »

I'm not sure.

OK, I'm prepared to believe that HFH would have told the truth on their website somewhere, but my understanding is that most people [until this was exposed] thought it would potentially help all injured servicemen.

As far as I know, RSPCA has "Animals" in its name and will tend to deal with all animals. HFH has "Heroes" in its name, without making it quite clear that the worst injured cannot continue serving and thus fall outside charitable help. The program I watched on this issue showed many discharged servicemen having to use NHS prosthetic limbs which are awful, and wait a long time for them too.

H4H do however indirectly support veterans by supporting veterans charities.

MFW_ASAP

Defined Benefit (aka final salary or career average pensions) are simply not affordable anymore and should be scrapped. There are very few left in the private sector, for exactly this reason. They exist in the public sector because joe-moron (the taxpayer) picks up the bill. That charities have these pensions is appalling and I will ensure that any charities I contribute to have Defined Contribution (aka money purchase) pensions.

I appreciate that charity workers have to be paid, and I appreciate they also should have similar employment packages as other employees. What they shouldn't receive is a gilt edged pension that pays them a package far more than they would receive working in the 'for profit' sector.

I also feel that all public sector final salary pensions should be scrapped. one in every five pounds paid as Council tax is used to pay for a council worker's lavish retirement. It's outrageous.