Charities CEO Salaries

[panoma1]

Gotta say I think the whole definition of a charity needs reviewing! Multi million pound, so called "charities" owning a vast portfolio of private assets such as the RSPCA, RSPB etc are businesses plain and simple....the "charity" side of the business should be the only part that benefits from its charitable status.

[toontastic]

1 hour ago, das said:

Nail on the head here> It's a charity not a business. My initial post on this referred to the obscene amounts a guy was receiving in pay from a concern whose mandate is to help people in
great need.
I worked for the English Springer Spaniel Rescue for several years on the homing team, My pay?  Only the reward of seeing my labours putting a rescue dog into a forever, loving home.

You printed a list of numbers, not one person on here knows what them individuals do to justify receiving such a high salary. People are speculating that big must be bad and very little is getting through to where it's needed.

As shooters we often moan about antis taking a small peice of info and using it against us without putting it in context. Big salaries are bad / big calibres like .50 are bad.

[toontastic]

15 minutes ago, panoma1 said:

Gotta say I think the whole definition of a charity needs reviewing! Multi million pound, so called "charities" owning a vast portfolio of private assets such as the RSPCA, RSPB etc are businesses plain and simple....the "charity" side of the business should be the only part that benefits from its charitable status.

Many many charities hold vast amounts of assets, please explain why holding assets is wrong.

My own regimental charity holds a vast amount of assets. The funds are used to provide for killed/injured members and their families. For years the fund grew and very little was paid out then along came Bosnia/Iraq/Afghanistan and the fund had to pay out substantial amounts to members and families. Without holding a portfolio of assets this wouldn't have been possible.

[panoma1]

3 minutes ago, toontastic said:

Many many charities hold vast amounts of assets, please explain why holding assets is wrong.

My own regimental charity holds a vast amount of assets. The funds are used to provide for killed/injured members and their families. For years the fund grew and very little was paid out then along came Bosnia/Iraq/Afghanistan and the fund had to pay out substantial amounts to members and families. Without holding a portfolio of assets this wouldn't have been possible.

Because the assets of these "charities" are purchased out of money that has been accumulated using subsidies and financial benefits given by the state by virtue of their charitable status!.......Subsidies and benefits that no other business has access to!

I also feel charities that misuse money donated to or given to them, on such things as political campaigning, should have their charitable status reviewed with a view to it being removed.

[TIGHTCHOKE]

Can I through another point in to this discussion;

How many people when seeing the exorbitant salaries these people are paid will never give them another penny?

[panoma1]

9 minutes ago, TIGHTCHOKE said:

Can I through another point in to this discussion;

How many people when seeing the exorbitant salaries these people are paid will never give them another penny?

I am certainly more discerning than I was! Largely due to the way donation money is used/spent, for example, and more pertinent to this forum, the RSPB, RSPCA and other so called conservation "charities"

[Rewulf]

51 minutes ago, toontastic said:

And I suppose you'll be telling us next you would turn down the big salary if you were offered one.

That would really depend on how 'charitable' he was wouldn't it?

I wonder how many of these CEO s donate some or all of that money back ?

I think some of you don't really get the concept of charity. Charity is about giving something out the goodness of your heart, something you don't have to do , but you WANT to because you feel you have enough yourself, perhaps you see someone in dire  need and it pulls at you to help.

If you want paying for this ,that is a job, a transaction, a business. Like I say I don't begrudge someone a wage , if that's their only income, but some of these people are being paid by multiple charities, are retired with fat pensions, or are working a proper, high paid job, and are quite frankly, taking the proverbial.

If the only people you believe suitable for the job, are people who demand 6 figure salaries, then they are not the right people to run a charity.

They simply don't understand the concept.

[toontastic]

23 minutes ago, TIGHTCHOKE said:

Can I through another point in to this discussion;

How many people when seeing the exorbitant salaries these people are paid will never give them another penny?

Why are they exorbitant, does anybody truthfully know what some of these people do to justify receiving big salaries. 

My partner and I both earn minimum wage and we manage to get by, so perhaps 20,000 a year is an exorbitant wage. Does anyone really justify earning more.

[old man]

1 hour ago, toontastic said:

And I suppose you'll be telling us next you would turn down the big salary if you were offered one.

And where did I indicate that?

Sadly, If your view is that excessively salaries are an indicator of effectiveness we will just have to disagree. 

[TIGHTCHOKE]

3 minutes ago, toontastic said:

Why are they exorbitant, does anybody truthfully know what some of these people do to justify receiving big salaries. 

My partner and I both earn minimum wage and we manage to get by, so perhaps 20,000 a year is an exorbitant wage. Does anyone really justify earning more.

In my opinion they are exorbitant and in your opinion they are not, so you keep giving to them and I will save my hard earned for more deserving causes with a better sense of Charity.

[Rewulf]

1 minute ago, TIGHTCHOKE said:

In my opinion they are exorbitant and in your opinion they are not, so you keep giving to them and I will save my hard earned for more deserving causes with a better sense of Charity.

+1

There was a time when people gave willingly and gladly to charity, believing that most , if not all of the money received went to the cause.

Most now realise that's not the case, and act accordingly by not giving as much.

[toontastic]

26 minutes ago, TIGHTCHOKE said:

In my opinion they are exorbitant and in your opinion they are not, so you keep giving to them and I will save my hard earned for more deserving causes with a better sense of Charity.

I didn't say they weren't exorbitant, what i don't understand is how people can say they are exorbitant when they don't know what they actually do to earn that salary. Surely it's better for someone to receive 200,000 and really work for it than say someone receiving 50,000 and doing absolutely nothing. 

Person A gets paid 250,000 they must be bad.

Person B gets paid 50,000 they must be good.

And nobody has a clue what either of them do, they just have details of their salaries.

Edited November 25, 2018 by toontastic

[JohnfromUK]

1 hour ago, panoma1 said:

Because the assets of these "charities" are purchased out of money that has been accumulated using subsidies and financial benefits given by the state by virtue of their charitable status!

Don't blame the charities for doing the best they can within the law to bolster their resources - if you don't agree with charities having beneficial treatment, blame the Government.  No one intentionally gives money to charities to have it paid in tax to the Government.

[panoma1]

2 minutes ago, JohnfromUK said:

Don't blame the charities for doing the best they can within the law to bolster their resources - if you don't agree with charities having beneficial treatment, blame the Government. 

I don't blame them, I do blame the system that allows it! That is why I suggested the definition of charities needs reviewing! The charities ain't gonna voluntarily change, so it's up to the government, via the charity commision to review........but they ain't gonna do that!..... so I'll not be making any donations any time soon!

[JohnfromUK]

10 minutes ago, panoma1 said:

I don't blame them,

But you are blaming them (and penalising them) if you'll ...

10 minutes ago, panoma1 said:

not be making any donations any time soon!

 

Edited November 25, 2018 by JohnfromUK

[das]

2 hours ago, toontastic said:

You printed a list of numbers, not one person on here knows what them individuals do to justify receiving such a high salary. People are speculating that big must be bad and very little is getting through to where it's needed.

As shooters we often moan about antis taking a small peice of info and using it against us without putting it in context. Big salaries are bad / big calibres like .50 are bad.

 

21 minutes ago, JohnfromUK said:

Don't blame the charities for doing the best they can within the law to bolster their resources - if you don't agree with charities having beneficial treatment, blame the Government.  No one intentionally gives money to charities to have it paid in tax to the Government.

Having read through the thread, there are fors and against, my original thoughts when this information was posted on social media, was the amount of the salaries paid to CEOs. On top of this you can probably add a Range Rover, a large pension pot along with the other jollies and perks that will go along with the job. A private profitable business, yes, a charity where people are trying to help and a large percentage of the money is creamed off, NO.
Start a chartity for whatever, seems that will create jobs for the boys. I stand by my comments.

[das]

34 minutes ago, toontastic said:

I didn't say they weren't exorbitant, what i don't understand is how people can say they are exorbitant when they don't know what they actually do to earn that salary. Surely it's better for someone to receive 200,000 and really work for it than say someone receiving 50,000 and doing absolutely nothing. 

Person A gets paid 250,000 they must be bad.

Person B gets paid 50,000 they must be good.

And nobody has a clue what either of them do, they just have details of their salaries.

A consultant surgeon gets considerably less than the top figure by a long chalk, and I think I know who I would pay the most.
Everyone should be paid the amount for what they do and are skilled at that and £250.000, I feel is a lump too much for a charity boss.
 

[panoma1]

17 minutes ago, JohnfromUK said:

But you are blaming them (and penalising them) if you'll ...

 

No I'm not! They are playing the system, I don't agree with it and I'm not prepared to finance it.....so they are penalising themselves!

[Jaymo]

11 minutes ago, das said:

 

Having read through the thread, there are fors and against, my original thoughts when this information was posted on social media,

Was on Facebook so must be true 🙂

Did you also used to read the daily Sport for its equally believable stories .......

[yod dropper]

A major source of income for many charities is public funding otherwise known as tax which comes from us.

[toontastic]

9 minutes ago, das said:

A consultant surgeon gets considerably less than the top figure by a long chalk, and I think I know who I would pay the most.
Everyone should be paid the amount for what they do and are skilled at that and £250.000, I feel is a lump too much for a charity boss.
 

But people are being condemned purely on the grounds of the salary they earn, not what they do to earn it.

[das]

1 minute ago, Jaymo said:

Was on Facebook so must be true 🙂

Did you also used to read the daily Sport for its equally believable stories .......

Simple, if these companies (sorry charities) are incorporated as most will be, then have a quick look on the Gov sites, they have to file their accounts.
Actually I was forwarded the figures on Facebook but the Daily Sport, no, a rag for chimps.

2 minutes ago, toontastic said:

But people are being condemned purely on the grounds of the salary they earn, not what they do to earn it.

IMHO nobody 'earns' these obscene salaries, they are given it.🙄

[toontastic]

29 minutes ago, das said:

 

IMHO nobody 'earns' these obscene salaries, they are given it.🙄

As I said previously 50,000 would be obscene if the person did nothing to earn it. 

Anybody can make assumptions without having facts, and you can't base someone's worth purely on a number, what matters is what they do to earn it.

Doh that's a big salary it has to be wrong, they must do nothing to earn it (factless statement)

Just like...

Doh .50 calibre that's big, let's ban them coz people might shoot police (another factless statement)

Give me facts, I'll happily condemn someone earning a big salary and doing nothing for it, but equally I'll refuse to condemn a high earner who's salary can be justified.

 

Edited November 25, 2018 by toontastic

[Rewulf]

53 minutes ago, toontastic said:

Doh .50 calibre that's big, let's ban them coz people might shoot police (another factless statement)

Give me facts

Here's one, 50 Cal's very nearly got banned off that factless statement.

You try to insinuate there are no charity CEOs that do virtually nothing for 6 figure salaries.

At least admit SOME of them take the **** !

[toontastic]

50 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

Here's one, 50 Cal's very nearly got banned off that factless statement.

You try to insinuate there are no charity CEOs that do virtually nothing for 6 figure salaries.

At least admit SOME of them take the **** !

I know 50 cal nearly got banned, I was referring to the MP making the statement about them being big and could be used to shoot police, no facts just based her assumptions on .50 being a big number, just like assuming a CEO on a big salary doesn't deserve it show me what they do or don't do to earn that pay.

I'm insinuating nothing, from a list of numbers I know not what they do to earn it. They all may deserve it or non may deserve it. It's not possible to deduce anything from a list of numbers. 

Please answer this question someone earns 40,000, someone earns 200,000 which one deserves their salary most.

Edited November 25, 2018 by toontastic