FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Overseas aid
Overseas aid
Jump to: Newest in thread
"some of these charities have directors and a CEO on over 500k a year.
thats a business so cut them salaries before asking for donations"
I think that many charities would argue that these high paid staff justify their salaries by bringing in thousands of times more money in donations.
Personally, I think that to qualify as a charity, no more than 1% of raised money should be allowed to be used to pay their "staff".
Cal |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Cash cow for way to many people not enough gets were it is need so stopping all aid is the only way but 10s of thousands of people make a living from it there will need to be reduced and pay cuts.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
 |
By *renzMan
over a year ago
Between Chichester and Havant |
One of those countries we have cut aid to is China. Why are we giving aid to China? India could be another argument, but given their current circumstances it should be more targeted. When aid is cut people automatically think of Africa etc. Unfortunately a lot of aid goes to countries that are rich enough not to need it. They just need to spend it wisely, perhaps by not putting a space program first rather than their people. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Cash cow for way to many people not enough gets were it is need so stopping all aid is the only way but 10s of thousands of people make a living from it there will need to be reduced and pay cuts.
"
So people should work for nothing? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Cash cow for way to many people not enough gets were it is need so stopping all aid is the only way but 10s of thousands of people make a living from it there will need to be reduced and pay cuts.
So people should work for nothing?"
It's charity. Should be charitable giving, not paid employment. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Cash cow for way to many people not enough gets were it is need so stopping all aid is the only way but 10s of thousands of people make a living from it there will need to be reduced and pay cuts.
So people should work for nothing?
It's charity. Should be charitable giving, not paid employment. "
Right. So people should work full time for nothing then? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Cash cow for way to many people not enough gets were it is need so stopping all aid is the only way but 10s of thousands of people make a living from it there will need to be reduced and pay cuts.
So people should work for nothing?
It's charity. Should be charitable giving, not paid employment.
Right. So people should work full time for nothing then?"
I'm not sure you understand the concept of charity.
If those people are giving their time for financial gain then it isn't charity. Just call it what it is, Business |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Cash cow for way to many people not enough gets were it is need so stopping all aid is the only way but 10s of thousands of people make a living from it there will need to be reduced and pay cuts.
So people should work for nothing?
It's charity. Should be charitable giving, not paid employment.
Right. So people should work full time for nothing then?
I'm not sure you understand the concept of charity.
If those people are giving their time for financial gain then it isn't charity. Just call it what it is, Business"
Many of these people work full time. If people don't get paid, they can't do it.
It's only a business if the aim is to make profit.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Cash cow for way to many people not enough gets were it is need so stopping all aid is the only way but 10s of thousands of people make a living from it there will need to be reduced and pay cuts.
So people should work for nothing?
It's charity. Should be charitable giving, not paid employment.
Right. So people should work full time for nothing then?
I'm not sure you understand the concept of charity.
If those people are giving their time for financial gain then it isn't charity. Just call it what it is, Business"
Surely a big organisation, even if it a charity,needs people to run it?
I'm just curious how you expect people to work for absolutely nothing? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Cash cow for way to many people not enough gets were it is need so stopping all aid is the only way but 10s of thousands of people make a living from it there will need to be reduced and pay cuts.
So people should work for nothing?
It's charity. Should be charitable giving, not paid employment.
Right. So people should work full time for nothing then?
I'm not sure you understand the concept of charity.
If those people are giving their time for financial gain then it isn't charity. Just call it what it is, Business
Many of these people work full time. If people don't get paid, they can't do it.
It's only a business if the aim is to make profit.
"
Can't the roles be share via a committee or something. There is nothing to day only one person can hold a position |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Cash cow for way to many people not enough gets were it is need so stopping all aid is the only way but 10s of thousands of people make a living from it there will need to be reduced and pay cuts.
So people should work for nothing?
It's charity. Should be charitable giving, not paid employment.
Right. So people should work full time for nothing then?
I'm not sure you understand the concept of charity.
If those people are giving their time for financial gain then it isn't charity. Just call it what it is, Business
Surely a big organisation, even if it a charity,needs people to run it?
I'm just curious how you expect people to work for absolutely nothing?"
No one is saying they need to 'work' for absolutely nothing. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Cash cow for way to many people not enough gets were it is need so stopping all aid is the only way but 10s of thousands of people make a living from it there will need to be reduced and pay cuts.
So people should work for nothing?
It's charity. Should be charitable giving, not paid employment.
Right. So people should work full time for nothing then?
I'm not sure you understand the concept of charity.
If those people are giving their time for financial gain then it isn't charity. Just call it what it is, Business
Many of these people work full time. If people don't get paid, they can't do it.
It's only a business if the aim is to make profit.
Can't the roles be share via a committee or something. There is nothing to day only one person can hold a position"
Someone full time would need to oversee this. And it doesn't sound very efficient. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Cash cow for way to many people not enough gets were it is need so stopping all aid is the only way but 10s of thousands of people make a living from it there will need to be reduced and pay cuts.
So people should work for nothing?
It's charity. Should be charitable giving, not paid employment.
Right. So people should work full time for nothing then?
I'm not sure you understand the concept of charity.
If those people are giving their time for financial gain then it isn't charity. Just call it what it is, Business
Many of these people work full time. If people don't get paid, they can't do it.
It's only a business if the aim is to make profit.
Can't the roles be share via a committee or something. There is nothing to day only one person can hold a position
Someone full time would need to oversee this. And it doesn't sound very efficient."
Isn't it amazing that so many on the left hate high earners yet are perfectly happy with charities putting donations into individuals pockets.
Absolutely astounds me |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Cash cow for way to many people not enough gets were it is need so stopping all aid is the only way but 10s of thousands of people make a living from it there will need to be reduced and pay cuts.
So people should work for nothing?
It's charity. Should be charitable giving, not paid employment.
Right. So people should work full time for nothing then?
I'm not sure you understand the concept of charity.
If those people are giving their time for financial gain then it isn't charity. Just call it what it is, Business
Many of these people work full time. If people don't get paid, they can't do it.
It's only a business if the aim is to make profit.
Can't the roles be share via a committee or something. There is nothing to day only one person can hold a position
Someone full time would need to oversee this. And it doesn't sound very efficient.
Isn't it amazing that so many on the left hate high earners yet are perfectly happy with charities putting donations into individuals pockets.
Absolutely astounds me "
Why do you assume I'm on the left? And why do you think the left hate high earners? Where do you get these ideas from.
And I'm not saying anything about putting donations into pockets. Surely charities need to be run by humans, and it seems unrealistic for a number of people to work full time for nothing to run these charities. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Cash cow for way to many people not enough gets were it is need so stopping all aid is the only way but 10s of thousands of people make a living from it there will need to be reduced and pay cuts.
So people should work for nothing?
It's charity. Should be charitable giving, not paid employment.
Right. So people should work full time for nothing then?
I'm not sure you understand the concept of charity.
If those people are giving their time for financial gain then it isn't charity. Just call it what it is, Business
Many of these people work full time. If people don't get paid, they can't do it.
It's only a business if the aim is to make profit.
Can't the roles be share via a committee or something. There is nothing to day only one person can hold a position
Someone full time would need to oversee this. And it doesn't sound very efficient.
Isn't it amazing that so many on the left hate high earners yet are perfectly happy with charities putting donations into individuals pockets.
Absolutely astounds me "
No..if you work ,you deserve to be paid.
It's quite simple. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Cash cow for way to many people not enough gets were it is need so stopping all aid is the only way but 10s of thousands of people make a living from it there will need to be reduced and pay cuts.
So people should work for nothing?
It's charity. Should be charitable giving, not paid employment.
Right. So people should work full time for nothing then?
I'm not sure you understand the concept of charity.
If those people are giving their time for financial gain then it isn't charity. Just call it what it is, Business
Many of these people work full time. If people don't get paid, they can't do it.
It's only a business if the aim is to make profit.
Can't the roles be share via a committee or something. There is nothing to day only one person can hold a position
Someone full time would need to oversee this. And it doesn't sound very efficient.
Isn't it amazing that so many on the left hate high earners yet are perfectly happy with charities putting donations into individuals pockets.
Absolutely astounds me
Why do you assume I'm on the left? And why do you think the left hate high earners? Where do you get these ideas from.
And I'm not saying anything about putting donations into pockets. Surely charities need to be run by humans, and it seems unrealistic for a number of people to work full time for nothing to run these charities. "
If you think there is something wrong with massive disparities between rich and poor this translates as hating anyone who has any money.
Complete bollocks of course. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Cash cow for way to many people not enough gets were it is need so stopping all aid is the only way but 10s of thousands of people make a living from it there will need to be reduced and pay cuts.
So people should work for nothing?
It's charity. Should be charitable giving, not paid employment.
Right. So people should work full time for nothing then?
I'm not sure you understand the concept of charity.
If those people are giving their time for financial gain then it isn't charity. Just call it what it is, Business
Many of these people work full time. If people don't get paid, they can't do it.
It's only a business if the aim is to make profit.
Can't the roles be share via a committee or something. There is nothing to day only one person can hold a position
Someone full time would need to oversee this. And it doesn't sound very efficient.
Isn't it amazing that so many on the left hate high earners yet are perfectly happy with charities putting donations into individuals pockets.
Absolutely astounds me
Why do you assume I'm on the left? And why do you think the left hate high earners? Where do you get these ideas from.
And I'm not saying anything about putting donations into pockets. Surely charities need to be run by humans, and it seems unrealistic for a number of people to work full time for nothing to run these charities. "
I didn't assume anything, a couple of days back you showed us the results of your 'policy questionnaire' and they where very much on the left. The left have always hated 'fat cats', not sure anyone would disagree.
The fact is that anywhere from 30%+ goes in pockets. Dependant on the charity of course. I don't agree with that. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Cash cow for way to many people not enough gets were it is need so stopping all aid is the only way but 10s of thousands of people make a living from it there will need to be reduced and pay cuts.
So people should work for nothing?
It's charity. Should be charitable giving, not paid employment.
Right. So people should work full time for nothing then?
I'm not sure you understand the concept of charity.
If those people are giving their time for financial gain then it isn't charity. Just call it what it is, Business
Many of these people work full time. If people don't get paid, they can't do it.
It's only a business if the aim is to make profit.
Can't the roles be share via a committee or something. There is nothing to day only one person can hold a position
Someone full time would need to oversee this. And it doesn't sound very efficient.
Isn't it amazing that so many on the left hate high earners yet are perfectly happy with charities putting donations into individuals pockets.
Absolutely astounds me
No..if you work ,you deserve to be paid.
It's quite simple."
I don't see it as work. I've already stated this. If you want to do charity then don't expect to be paid. It's a really simple concept. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Cash cow for way to many people not enough gets were it is need so stopping all aid is the only way but 10s of thousands of people make a living from it there will need to be reduced and pay cuts.
So people should work for nothing?
It's charity. Should be charitable giving, not paid employment.
Right. So people should work full time for nothing then?
I'm not sure you understand the concept of charity.
If those people are giving their time for financial gain then it isn't charity. Just call it what it is, Business
Many of these people work full time. If people don't get paid, they can't do it.
It's only a business if the aim is to make profit.
Can't the roles be share via a committee or something. There is nothing to day only one person can hold a position
Someone full time would need to oversee this. And it doesn't sound very efficient.
Isn't it amazing that so many on the left hate high earners yet are perfectly happy with charities putting donations into individuals pockets.
Absolutely astounds me
No..if you work ,you deserve to be paid.
It's quite simple.
I don't see it as work. I've already stated this. If you want to do charity then don't expect to be paid. It's a really simple concept."
Right so if everyone decided they actually wanted to be paid for working..how would the charities survive ? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Cash cow for way to many people not enough gets were it is need so stopping all aid is the only way but 10s of thousands of people make a living from it there will need to be reduced and pay cuts.
So people should work for nothing?
It's charity. Should be charitable giving, not paid employment.
Right. So people should work full time for nothing then?
I'm not sure you understand the concept of charity.
If those people are giving their time for financial gain then it isn't charity. Just call it what it is, Business
Many of these people work full time. If people don't get paid, they can't do it.
It's only a business if the aim is to make profit.
Can't the roles be share via a committee or something. There is nothing to day only one person can hold a position
Someone full time would need to oversee this. And it doesn't sound very efficient.
Isn't it amazing that so many on the left hate high earners yet are perfectly happy with charities putting donations into individuals pockets.
Absolutely astounds me
No..if you work ,you deserve to be paid.
It's quite simple.
I don't see it as work. I've already stated this. If you want to do charity then don't expect to be paid. It's a really simple concept.
Right so if everyone decided they actually wanted to be paid for working..how would the charities survive ?"
Are you hard of hearing. I don't see it as work. It should be a charitable donation. A donation of time and skill rather than money.
It's really not rocket science. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Cash cow for way to many people not enough gets were it is need so stopping all aid is the only way but 10s of thousands of people make a living from it there will need to be reduced and pay cuts.
So people should work for nothing?
It's charity. Should be charitable giving, not paid employment.
Right. So people should work full time for nothing then?
I'm not sure you understand the concept of charity.
If those people are giving their time for financial gain then it isn't charity. Just call it what it is, Business
Many of these people work full time. If people don't get paid, they can't do it.
It's only a business if the aim is to make profit.
Can't the roles be share via a committee or something. There is nothing to day only one person can hold a position
Someone full time would need to oversee this. And it doesn't sound very efficient.
Isn't it amazing that so many on the left hate high earners yet are perfectly happy with charities putting donations into individuals pockets.
Absolutely astounds me
Why do you assume I'm on the left? And why do you think the left hate high earners? Where do you get these ideas from.
And I'm not saying anything about putting donations into pockets. Surely charities need to be run by humans, and it seems unrealistic for a number of people to work full time for nothing to run these charities.
I didn't assume anything, a couple of days back you showed us the results of your 'policy questionnaire' and they where very much on the left. The left have always hated 'fat cats', not sure anyone would disagree.
The fact is that anywhere from 30%+ goes in pockets. Dependant on the charity of course. I don't agree with that."
"Fat cats" is completely different to high earners, has many connotations and implications.
And sure, but like we discussed, those results were to be taken with a pinch of salt.
In any case, it's fine to hold opposing opinions.
I definitely think that people who work for charities need to be paid a fair wage, as running them is a full time, complex job. Of course there are roles suitable for volunteers too. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Cash cow for way to many people not enough gets were it is need so stopping all aid is the only way but 10s of thousands of people make a living from it there will need to be reduced and pay cuts.
So people should work for nothing?
It's charity. Should be charitable giving, not paid employment.
Right. So people should work full time for nothing then?
I'm not sure you understand the concept of charity.
If those people are giving their time for financial gain then it isn't charity. Just call it what it is, Business
Many of these people work full time. If people don't get paid, they can't do it.
It's only a business if the aim is to make profit.
Can't the roles be share via a committee or something. There is nothing to day only one person can hold a position
Someone full time would need to oversee this. And it doesn't sound very efficient.
Isn't it amazing that so many on the left hate high earners yet are perfectly happy with charities putting donations into individuals pockets.
Absolutely astounds me
Why do you assume I'm on the left? And why do you think the left hate high earners? Where do you get these ideas from.
And I'm not saying anything about putting donations into pockets. Surely charities need to be run by humans, and it seems unrealistic for a number of people to work full time for nothing to run these charities.
I didn't assume anything, a couple of days back you showed us the results of your 'policy questionnaire' and they where very much on the left. The left have always hated 'fat cats', not sure anyone would disagree.
The fact is that anywhere from 30%+ goes in pockets. Dependant on the charity of course. I don't agree with that.
"Fat cats" is completely different to high earners, has many connotations and implications.
And sure, but like we discussed, those results were to be taken with a pinch of salt.
In any case, it's fine to hold opposing opinions.
I definitely think that people who work for charities need to be paid a fair wage, as running them is a full time, complex job. Of course there are roles suitable for volunteers too."
Plenty of these charity CEOs would be described as 'fats cats'.
Anyway, I'm glad we've come to the conclusion that we're allowed to disagree, seems it's not so easy at times on here. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Cash cow for way to many people not enough gets were it is need so stopping all aid is the only way but 10s of thousands of people make a living from it there will need to be reduced and pay cuts.
So people should work for nothing?
It's charity. Should be charitable giving, not paid employment.
Right. So people should work full time for nothing then?
I'm not sure you understand the concept of charity.
If those people are giving their time for financial gain then it isn't charity. Just call it what it is, Business
Many of these people work full time. If people don't get paid, they can't do it.
It's only a business if the aim is to make profit.
Can't the roles be share via a committee or something. There is nothing to day only one person can hold a position
Someone full time would need to oversee this. And it doesn't sound very efficient.
Isn't it amazing that so many on the left hate high earners yet are perfectly happy with charities putting donations into individuals pockets.
Absolutely astounds me
Why do you assume I'm on the left? And why do you think the left hate high earners? Where do you get these ideas from.
And I'm not saying anything about putting donations into pockets. Surely charities need to be run by humans, and it seems unrealistic for a number of people to work full time for nothing to run these charities.
I didn't assume anything, a couple of days back you showed us the results of your 'policy questionnaire' and they where very much on the left. The left have always hated 'fat cats', not sure anyone would disagree.
The fact is that anywhere from 30%+ goes in pockets. Dependant on the charity of course. I don't agree with that.
"Fat cats" is completely different to high earners, has many connotations and implications.
And sure, but like we discussed, those results were to be taken with a pinch of salt.
In any case, it's fine to hold opposing opinions.
I definitely think that people who work for charities need to be paid a fair wage, as running them is a full time, complex job. Of course there are roles suitable for volunteers too.
Plenty of these charity CEOs would be described as 'fats cats'.
Anyway, I'm glad we've come to the conclusion that we're allowed to disagree, seems it's not so easy at times on here."
Yeah and I agree that if people at charities are getting paid huge wages for doing fuck all. Then action should be taken.
Reducing overseas aid has nothing to do with any of this though. It's all part of the governments efforts in trade negotiations. Britain gives aid to all these countries that people don't want us to give aid to, not for altruistic reasons, but for political reasons. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Cash cow for way to many people not enough gets were it is need so stopping all aid is the only way but 10s of thousands of people make a living from it there will need to be reduced and pay cuts.
So people should work for nothing?
It's charity. Should be charitable giving, not paid employment.
Right. So people should work full time for nothing then?
I'm not sure you understand the concept of charity.
If those people are giving their time for financial gain then it isn't charity. Just call it what it is, Business
Many of these people work full time. If people don't get paid, they can't do it.
It's only a business if the aim is to make profit.
Can't the roles be share via a committee or something. There is nothing to day only one person can hold a position
Someone full time would need to oversee this. And it doesn't sound very efficient.
Isn't it amazing that so many on the left hate high earners yet are perfectly happy with charities putting donations into individuals pockets.
Absolutely astounds me
Why do you assume I'm on the left? And why do you think the left hate high earners? Where do you get these ideas from.
And I'm not saying anything about putting donations into pockets. Surely charities need to be run by humans, and it seems unrealistic for a number of people to work full time for nothing to run these charities.
I didn't assume anything, a couple of days back you showed us the results of your 'policy questionnaire' and they where very much on the left. The left have always hated 'fat cats', not sure anyone would disagree.
The fact is that anywhere from 30%+ goes in pockets. Dependant on the charity of course. I don't agree with that.
"Fat cats" is completely different to high earners, has many connotations and implications.
And sure, but like we discussed, those results were to be taken with a pinch of salt.
In any case, it's fine to hold opposing opinions.
I definitely think that people who work for charities need to be paid a fair wage, as running them is a full time, complex job. Of course there are roles suitable for volunteers too.
Plenty of these charity CEOs would be described as 'fats cats'.
Anyway, I'm glad we've come to the conclusion that we're allowed to disagree, seems it's not so easy at times on here.
Yeah and I agree that if people at charities are getting paid huge wages for doing fuck all. Then action should be taken.
Reducing overseas aid has nothing to do with any of this though. It's all part of the governments efforts in trade negotiations. Britain gives aid to all these countries that people don't want us to give aid to, not for altruistic reasons, but for political reasons. "
We can agree on the fact that aid is given for political reasons. That's the same worldwide though, not just the UK. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Cash cow for way to many people not enough gets were it is need so stopping all aid is the only way but 10s of thousands of people make a living from it there will need to be reduced and pay cuts.
So people should work for nothing?
It's charity. Should be charitable giving, not paid employment.
Right. So people should work full time for nothing then?
I'm not sure you understand the concept of charity.
If those people are giving their time for financial gain then it isn't charity. Just call it what it is, Business
Many of these people work full time. If people don't get paid, they can't do it.
It's only a business if the aim is to make profit.
Can't the roles be share via a committee or something. There is nothing to day only one person can hold a position
Someone full time would need to oversee this. And it doesn't sound very efficient.
Isn't it amazing that so many on the left hate high earners yet are perfectly happy with charities putting donations into individuals pockets.
Absolutely astounds me
Why do you assume I'm on the left? And why do you think the left hate high earners? Where do you get these ideas from.
And I'm not saying anything about putting donations into pockets. Surely charities need to be run by humans, and it seems unrealistic for a number of people to work full time for nothing to run these charities.
I didn't assume anything, a couple of days back you showed us the results of your 'policy questionnaire' and they where very much on the left. The left have always hated 'fat cats', not sure anyone would disagree.
The fact is that anywhere from 30%+ goes in pockets. Dependant on the charity of course. I don't agree with that."
niether do I it’s a disgrace what some of these people at the top in so called charities earn |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ammskiMan
over a year ago
lytham st.annes |
"Cash cow for way to many people not enough gets were it is need so stopping all aid is the only way but 10s of thousands of people make a living from it there will need to be reduced and pay cuts.
So people should work for nothing?
It's charity. Should be charitable giving, not paid employment.
Right. So people should work full time for nothing then?
I'm not sure you understand the concept of charity.
If those people are giving their time for financial gain then it isn't charity. Just call it what it is, Business
Many of these people work full time. If people don't get paid, they can't do it.
It's only a business if the aim is to make profit.
Can't the roles be share via a committee or something. There is nothing to day only one person can hold a position
Someone full time would need to oversee this. And it doesn't sound very efficient.
Isn't it amazing that so many on the left hate high earners yet are perfectly happy with charities putting donations into individuals pockets.
Absolutely astounds me
Why do you assume I'm on the left? And why do you think the left hate high earners? Where do you get these ideas from.
And I'm not saying anything about putting donations into pockets. Surely charities need to be run by humans, and it seems unrealistic for a number of people to work full time for nothing to run these charities.
I didn't assume anything, a couple of days back you showed us the results of your 'policy questionnaire' and they where very much on the left. The left have always hated 'fat cats', not sure anyone would disagree.
The fact is that anywhere from 30%+ goes in pockets. Dependant on the charity of course. I don't agree with that.niether do I it’s a disgrace what some of these people at the top in so called charities earn "
 |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Cash cow for way to many people not enough gets were it is need so stopping all aid is the only way but 10s of thousands of people make a living from it there will need to be reduced and pay cuts.
So people should work for nothing?
It's charity. Should be charitable giving, not paid employment.
Right. So people should work full time for nothing then?
I'm not sure you understand the concept of charity.
If those people are giving their time for financial gain then it isn't charity. Just call it what it is, Business
Many of these people work full time. If people don't get paid, they can't do it.
It's only a business if the aim is to make profit.
Can't the roles be share via a committee or something. There is nothing to day only one person can hold a position
Someone full time would need to oversee this. And it doesn't sound very efficient.
Isn't it amazing that so many on the left hate high earners yet are perfectly happy with charities putting donations into individuals pockets.
Absolutely astounds me
Why do you assume I'm on the left? And why do you think the left hate high earners? Where do you get these ideas from.
And I'm not saying anything about putting donations into pockets. Surely charities need to be run by humans, and it seems unrealistic for a number of people to work full time for nothing to run these charities.
I didn't assume anything, a couple of days back you showed us the results of your 'policy questionnaire' and they where very much on the left. The left have always hated 'fat cats', not sure anyone would disagree.
The fact is that anywhere from 30%+ goes in pockets. Dependant on the charity of course. I don't agree with that.niether do I it’s a disgrace what some of these people at the top in so called charities earn "
Unfortunately if you don’t pay wages no one will do the job, the wages are ridiculously high though |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ackal1Couple
over a year ago
Manchester |
"Cash cow for way to many people not enough gets were it is need so stopping all aid is the only way but 10s of thousands of people make a living from it there will need to be reduced and pay cuts.
So people should work for nothing?
It's charity. Should be charitable giving, not paid employment.
Right. So people should work full time for nothing then?
I'm not sure you understand the concept of charity.
If those people are giving their time for financial gain then it isn't charity. Just call it what it is, Business
Many of these people work full time. If people don't get paid, they can't do it.
It's only a business if the aim is to make profit.
Can't the roles be share via a committee or something. There is nothing to day only one person can hold a position"
Have you seen how big these organisations are . It’s not the local WI . Talk sense they need to employ people full time . |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
I have 3 friends that work in this industry and all 4 say they work there just because of the wages and pretty much guarantee that if it dropped they'd all leave I have no probs people being employed full time just some of the wages are to high for me but again I never give to charity. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ackal1Couple
over a year ago
Manchester |
"Cash cow for way to many people not enough gets were it is need so stopping all aid is the only way but 10s of thousands of people make a living from it there will need to be reduced and pay cuts.
So people should work for nothing?
It's charity. Should be charitable giving, not paid employment.
Right. So people should work full time for nothing then?
I'm not sure you understand the concept of charity.
If those people are giving their time for financial gain then it isn't charity. Just call it what it is, Business
Many of these people work full time. If people don't get paid, they can't do it.
It's only a business if the aim is to make profit.
Can't the roles be share via a committee or something. There is nothing to day only one person can hold a position
Someone full time would need to oversee this. And it doesn't sound very efficient.
Isn't it amazing that so many on the left hate high earners yet are perfectly happy with charities putting donations into individuals pockets.
Absolutely astounds me
Why do you assume I'm on the left? And why do you think the left hate high earners? Where do you get these ideas from.
And I'm not saying anything about putting donations into pockets. Surely charities need to be run by humans, and it seems unrealistic for a number of people to work full time for nothing to run these charities.
I didn't assume anything, a couple of days back you showed us the results of your 'policy questionnaire' and they where very much on the left. The left have always hated 'fat cats', not sure anyone would disagree.
The fact is that anywhere from 30%+ goes in pockets. Dependant on the charity of course. I don't agree with that.niether do I it’s a disgrace what some of these people at the top in so called charities earn
Unfortunately if you don’t pay wages no one will do the job, the wages are ridiculously high though "
Agree , one women’s rights charity’s CEO earns over £200k and ten staff are on over £150k . That’s ridiculous . |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ssex_tom OP Man
over a year ago
Chelmsford |
"Cash cow for way to many people not enough gets were it is need so stopping all aid is the only way but 10s of thousands of people make a living from it there will need to be reduced and pay cuts.
So people should work for nothing?
It's charity. Should be charitable giving, not paid employment.
Right. So people should work full time for nothing then?
I'm not sure you understand the concept of charity.
If those people are giving their time for financial gain then it isn't charity. Just call it what it is, Business
Surely a big organisation, even if it a charity,needs people to run it?
I'm just curious how you expect people to work for absolutely nothing?"
I knew it...Lionel is a capitalist at heart |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ssex_tom OP Man
over a year ago
Chelmsford |
"Cash cow for way to many people not enough gets were it is need so stopping all aid is the only way but 10s of thousands of people make a living from it there will need to be reduced and pay cuts.
So people should work for nothing?
It's charity. Should be charitable giving, not paid employment.
Right. So people should work full time for nothing then?
I'm not sure you understand the concept of charity.
If those people are giving their time for financial gain then it isn't charity. Just call it what it is, Business
Many of these people work full time. If people don't get paid, they can't do it.
It's only a business if the aim is to make profit.
Can't the roles be share via a committee or something. There is nothing to day only one person can hold a position
Someone full time would need to oversee this. And it doesn't sound very efficient.
Isn't it amazing that so many on the left hate high earners yet are perfectly happy with charities putting donations into individuals pockets.
Absolutely astounds me
Why do you assume I'm on the left? And why do you think the left hate high earners? Where do you get these ideas from.
And I'm not saying anything about putting donations into pockets. Surely charities need to be run by humans, and it seems unrealistic for a number of people to work full time for nothing to run these charities.
I didn't assume anything, a couple of days back you showed us the results of your 'policy questionnaire' and they where very much on the left. The left have always hated 'fat cats', not sure anyone would disagree.
The fact is that anywhere from 30%+ goes in pockets. Dependant on the charity of course. I don't agree with that.niether do I it’s a disgrace what some of these people at the top in so called charities earn
Unfortunately if you don’t pay wages no one will do the job, the wages are ridiculously high though
Agree , one women’s rights charity’s CEO earns over £200k and ten staff are on over £150k . That’s ridiculous . "
Name that charity ? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Cash cow for way to many people not enough gets were it is need so stopping all aid is the only way but 10s of thousands of people make a living from it there will need to be reduced and pay cuts.
So people should work for nothing?
It's charity. Should be charitable giving, not paid employment.
Right. So people should work full time for nothing then?
I'm not sure you understand the concept of charity.
If those people are giving their time for financial gain then it isn't charity. Just call it what it is, Business
Many of these people work full time. If people don't get paid, they can't do it.
It's only a business if the aim is to make profit.
Can't the roles be share via a committee or something. There is nothing to day only one person can hold a position
Someone full time would need to oversee this. And it doesn't sound very efficient.
Isn't it amazing that so many on the left hate high earners yet are perfectly happy with charities putting donations into individuals pockets.
Absolutely astounds me
Why do you assume I'm on the left? And why do you think the left hate high earners? Where do you get these ideas from.
And I'm not saying anything about putting donations into pockets. Surely charities need to be run by humans, and it seems unrealistic for a number of people to work full time for nothing to run these charities.
I didn't assume anything, a couple of days back you showed us the results of your 'policy questionnaire' and they where very much on the left. The left have always hated 'fat cats', not sure anyone would disagree.
The fact is that anywhere from 30%+ goes in pockets. Dependant on the charity of course. I don't agree with that.niether do I it’s a disgrace what some of these people at the top in so called charities earn
Unfortunately if you don’t pay wages no one will do the job, the wages are ridiculously high though
Agree , one women’s rights charity’s CEO earns over £200k and ten staff are on over £150k . That’s ridiculous . "
it’s not really a charity then not when so much is going into wages that high |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I have 3 friends that work in this industry and all 4 say they work there just because of the wages and pretty much guarantee that if it dropped they'd all leave I have no probs people being employed full time just some of the wages are to high for me but again I never give to charity."
All 4 of your 3 friends? 
But yeah, this is why they have to pay people to work in charities. No fucker is going to work full time for free. Not long term anyway. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ssex_tom OP Man
over a year ago
Chelmsford |
"I have 3 friends that work in this industry and all 4 say they work there just because of the wages and pretty much guarantee that if it dropped they'd all leave I have no probs people being employed full time just some of the wages are to high for me but again I never give to charity.
All 4 of your 3 friends?
But yeah, this is why they have to pay people to work in charities. No fucker is going to work full time for free. Not long term anyway."
Let's pay them all top dollar...no money left for the deserving.
Matters not eh? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I have 3 friends that work in this industry and all 4 say they work there just because of the wages and pretty much guarantee that if it dropped they'd all leave I have no probs people being employed full time just some of the wages are to high for me but again I never give to charity.
All 4 of your 3 friends?
But yeah, this is why they have to pay people to work in charities. No fucker is going to work full time for free. Not long term anyway.
Let's pay them all top dollar...no money left for the deserving.
Matters not eh?"
Why would you suggest that?
Seems like a fair wage, would be fair. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
I find it quite odd that people can get so worked up about what are,at best,speculative ideas about people who work for charities are on(and presumably it's only those at the very top, who earn anywhere near this)
Yet are quite happy for others to award themselves massive financial pay outs. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"A charity should be made to list the percentange of their income that they pay out in wages.
I thought they did?
And that's why I don't give."
I'm sure that 10 pence a year donation is sorely missed
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ssex_tom OP Man
over a year ago
Chelmsford |
"A charity should be made to list the percentange of their income that they pay out in wages.
I thought they did?
And that's why I don't give.
I'm sure that 10 pence a year donation is sorely missed
"
Well multiply 10p by the millions of people dissolutioned by charity and it adds up |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ssex_tom OP Man
over a year ago
Chelmsford |
"I give bugger all to these leeches.. bugger all..
Assuming you are a tax payer which I'm sure you are then you do give to charity like it or not"
Agreed.. so no need to give any more to these tin rattlers outside Tesco... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
