In debt but still give to charity?

freshcotton

Large charities need to spend money on administration, otherwise they would never grow.

Whilst their costs are high, who can criticise the vast work charities like oxfam, rspca and the Red Cross have achieved.

Don't also forget the importance these charities have on raising public awareness, exposing corruption and prosecuting.

Saying that, I can appreciate why people would rather support a local "hands on" project and of course, there is absolutely nothing wrong with that.

But to suggest that the likes of oxfam is a force for evil is just rubbish

[Deleted User]

iolanthe07 wrote: »

I was shocked when I learned about the huge salaries (in some cases more than that of the Prime Minister) paid to some large charity CEO's. I now only give to small local charities run by volunteers and Battersea Dogs' Home.

Sadly big charities have to be run like a business today and they need experienced people to run them, and they will only work for the sort of money they can earn elsewhere (who can blame them?)
Having said that I rarely give to these big names preferring when I am able to give to food banks and homeless people, neither of which should need to exist in 2016.

chubsta

Richey_ wrote: »

Do you want a medal?

You chose to get into debt - a child of abuse, a person homeless through no fault of their own or child in a third world/war torn country has no choice in this matter.

No one is making you give monies to charity, I know what I do (privately)......

No, I don't want a xxxxxxx medal - I asked a question about whether other people still give to charity despite having debts as i was interested - it is a part of human nature to be altruistic and i wanted to see if that is still the case when under pressure. Where does it say i want to be praised for what i do? And yes, i chose to get into debt because how else could i afford to buy a house in the South East, save up £400,000? Or don't you agree with mortgages?

I think it is a shame that people are getting cynical about charity, but that is the fault of, as others have said, those that either pay huge amounts in 'administration', or who are forceful in their collecting techniques - employing students who know nothing other than how to fill in a direct-debit form to mug you in the street. Another aspect are the 'celeb' charities who raise millions through beautiful charity events where everyone involved has a nice meal and a good time but where the expenses of the 'do' take half of it, and then the admin of the charity takes the other half, before you know it there is nothing left but they have raised 'awareness'...

The main charity i support has an income of just over £15,000 a year, of which £14,000 was accounted for in direct expenses (no wages, personal expenses) last year, I think it is reasonable to keep a fund of £1000 back just in case something happens, that is what charity is about for me, and will continue to support. Of course, if i ever ended up in trouble with debt I would have to reassess but it is nice to see other people in a similar situation feel the same, particularly about supporting local 'good causes'

DrWatson1

chubsta wrote: »

it is a part of human nature to be altruistic and i wanted to see if that is still the case when under pressure.

Not to derail the discussion too far, but it's very unlikely humans are hard-wired for altruism. It's it's actually very difficult to carry out a truly altruistic act - so if you get a warm feeling when you donate to charity, then it's not an altruistic act, and it's certainly not altruism when you plaster your good deeds on Facebook!

System

Hi,
I work for a big charity and we all work so hard, giving far more in time than we actually get paid for as we are all so passionate for the cause that we work for. I don't think the CEO paychecks are set too high when you see how much responsibility they have.
(From a lowly charity worker definitely not paid that amount!)
Interestingly I don't regularly give to charities as I feel like I am already doing my bit - but I do give small bits when I can.

iolanthe07

theoretica wrote: »

If you are interested, the Battersea Dog's Home wouldn't pass my scrutiny for financial donations. In 2015 they spent £11.5 million on getting donations and legacies which raised £31 million (p17). I wouldn't want over 1/3 of my donation to be spent on fundraising.
Also as you mention high salaries as of concern to you, the highest paid member of staff was getting £130-140k (p 27).

http://apps.charitycommission.gov.uk/Accounts/Ends94/0000206394_AC_20151231_E_C.PDF

Thank you. I didn't know that. I might well reconsider and give the money to a local hospice instead.

EssexHebridean

Just by way of a reminder - "Please be nice to all moneysavers"

This is an emotive subject but it is an interesting question. Personally I feel that if someone is struggling to make ends meet within their own household, then outside charity donations need to be put on hold - your first responsibility surely has to be to your own family, and indeed to yourself. If someone in that position feels they want to do "something" then a "value" brand tin of soup, or bag of rice dropped into the foodbank bin once a week will make a difference to those in even more need, without breaking the donor's own bank, I would suggest.

There are all sorts of ways to support a chosen charity as well - from the obvious monthly sum with gift-aid, to more practical options such as donating unwanted items to the charity shop, buying items from the charity shop, or indeed volunteering time. Different routes suit different people better - someone who is money-rich but time poor may find a monetary donation suits them the best, someone who has time on their hands but no spare cash may feel that their favoured route is to offer time sorting foodbank donations, or serving ion a shop counter. It doesn;'t mean that either of those is of less value than the other, though.

Ben75

I donate £5 a month to the Trussell Trust who look after local food banks. I still have debts over £11,000 but I have some spare income at the end of each month so I figure there are people in far worse positions than I am.

sourcrates

theoretica wrote: »

Also as you mention high salaries as of concern to you, the highest paid member of staff was getting £130-140k (p 27).

No one needs to be paid £140k a year, especially by a charity organisation.
If it were me getting that salary from a charity, i doubt i could look people in the face to be honest.

What exactly do these CEO`s do for there money, on a day to day basis ? anyone ??

They say big salaries attract the "right kind of people" hmmm right for what though ?

How many people could be fed for £140k and for how long ?

These charities may of been set up with the very best of intentions, but have become embroiled in the consumerism of the first world, if a charity really wanted to be ethical, non of its employees should be paid more than a living wage in my opinion.

These fat cat CEO`s are all apart of the problem rather than the solution.

iolanthe07

sourcrates wrote: »

No one needs to be paid £140k a year, especially by a charity organisation.
If it were me getting that salary from a charity, i doubt i could look people in the face to be honest.

What exactly do these CEO`s do for there money, on a day to day basis ? anyone ??

They say big salaries attract the "right kind of people" hmmm right for what though ?

How many people could be fed for £140k and for how long ?



These charities may of been set up with the very best of intentions, but have become embroiled in the consumerism of the first world, if a charity really wanted to be ethical, non of its employees should be paid more than a living wage in my opinion.

These fat cat CEO`s are all apart of the problem rather than the solution.

Spot on sourcrates. Taking money from sometimes poor and elderly donors while living a lavish lifestyle they can only dream of doesn't seem right at all, however good the cause. If they can afford to pay their CEO as much as the Prime Minister of the country, then they obviously don't need my few quid.