FabSwingers.com forum: Overseas aid

By *ssex_tom OP Man
over a year ago

Chelmsford

Has been cut and some charities are not happy..

My take...giving to charity should not be expected.. it's voluntary..

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

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

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ssex_tom OP Man
over a year ago

Chelmsford

That's my take on it

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *AABMan
over a year ago

Not far

I think if we cut aid to countries that’s aiming to improve the lives of those in poverty we shouldn’t be surprised if they show up on our beaches.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ssex_tom OP Man
over a year ago

Chelmsford

The gap in funding will be made seeking to further their influence. China in Africa being one example. But out of the millions pissed away, how much actually gets to those who need it

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *alandNitaCouple
over a year ago

Scunthorpe

"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

Reply +quote

By *den-Valley-coupleCouple
over a year ago

Cumbria

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

Reply +quote

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

Reply +quote

By *ionelhutzMan
over a year ago

liverpool

"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

Reply +quote

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

Reply +quote

By *ionelhutzMan
over a year ago

liverpool

"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

Reply +quote

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

Reply +quote

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

Reply +quote

By *ionelhutzMan
over a year ago

liverpool

"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

Reply +quote

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

Reply +quote

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

Reply +quote

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

Reply +quote

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

Reply +quote

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

Reply +quote

By *ionelhutzMan
over a year ago

liverpool

"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

Reply +quote

By *ionelhutzMan
over a year ago

liverpool

"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.

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

Reply +quote

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.

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

Reply +quote

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

Reply +quote

By *ionelhutzMan
over a year ago

liverpool

"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

Reply +quote

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

Reply +quote

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.

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

Reply +quote

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.

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

Reply +quote

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.

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

Reply +quote

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.

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.

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

Reply +quote

By *oxychick35Couple
over a year ago

thornaby

"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.

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

Reply +quote

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.

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

Reply +quote

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.

Unfortunately if you don’t pay wages no one will do the job, the wages are ridiculously high though

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

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

Reply +quote

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

Reply +quote

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.

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

Reply +quote

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

Reply +quote

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.

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

Reply +quote

By *oxychick35Couple
over a year ago

thornaby

"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.

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

Reply +quote

By *ssex_tom OP Man
over a year ago

Chelmsford

I think so.. these people are parasites..

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

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

Reply +quote

By *ssex_tom OP Man
over a year ago

Chelmsford

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

Reply +quote

By *ockdownerMan
over a year ago

Preston

"I have 3 friends that work in this industry and all 4 say ."

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

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

Reply +quote

By *ssex_tom OP Man
over a year ago

Chelmsford

Fair wage fine...milking the cow for every penny not fine

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ercuryMan
over a year ago

Grantham

A charity should be made to list the percentange of their income that they pay out in wages.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ionelhutzMan
over a year ago

liverpool

"A charity should be made to list the percentange of their income that they pay out in wages.

I thought they did?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

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.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ionelhutzMan
over a year ago

liverpool

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

Reply +quote

By *ionelhutzMan
over a year ago

liverpool

"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

Reply +quote

By *ssex_tom OP Man
over a year ago

Chelmsford

I give bugger all to these leeches.. bugger all..

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

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

Reply +quote

By *ssex_tom OP Man
over a year ago

Chelmsford

I never give to these buggers

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ebbie69Couple
over a year ago

milton keynes

"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

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

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

Reply +quote

Post new Message to Thread