Not signed in (Sign In)

Categories

Google ads

Vanilla 1.0.3 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.

General chat: Charity costs

Bottom of Page

1 to 23 of 23

  1.  
    • CommentAuthorandy
    • CommentTimeNov 13th 2006 edited
     
    • CommentAuthorDavid
    • CommentTimeNov 13th 2006 edited
     

    Not really, though I did think charities acutally spent more than that. But then its suggesting they may well do, its hard to tell. Not very transparent.

    I would like to say I hate those NSPCC adverts of recent now. Worthy charity for sure, but there's something syrupy about the delivery and use of names like "... little Timmy here..." its all a bit Daily Mail - first time I saw one I thought it was a trailer for a new Brass Eye show by Chris Morris.

    "Now that is scientific fact - there's no real evidence for it - but it is scientific fact"

    • CommentAuthorPete
    • CommentTimeNov 13th 2006
     
    I don't give to charity purely based on the money not going to charitable means.
    More precisely, the money spent on expensive (and slightly insulting) television adverts and the people who create them. And on the sheer masses of paper they put through my door.

    This is why I believe in the nationalisation of charities. Take the NSPCC, Children in Need, Childline and any other solely child themed chairty, force them together, one budget for marketing, larger altogether budget to get things done. Call it "The Royal Children's Charity"

    Same goes for the various cancer charities. The larger combined budget would surely find the pesky cure.

    As far as I can see, this makes perfect sense. Monopolising charitable bases means extra efficency, fewer costs, larger outputs. Do charities really need competition?
    • CommentAuthorLucy
    • CommentTimeNov 13th 2006
     

    Andy, response? Or are you just going to ignore the lit torch paper?

    • CommentAuthorPete
    • CommentTimeNov 13th 2006
     
    No lit torch paper about it. Out of all of my cloud-watching-inspired socio-political theories, this seems honestly sensible (if not slightly utalitarian) I can't see why we have a disorganised, multi-faced approach to the same problems that would benefit from a monopoly-esque status. If altruism is our goal, then surely that demands unities?

    I have no doubt Andy will answer with something I've completely looked over.
    • CommentAuthorDavid
    • CommentTimeNov 13th 2006
     

    We need a WTO for charidee.

    • CommentAuthorandy
    • CommentTimeNov 13th 2006
     
    The only flaw is that monopolies = communism.

    Apart from the fact that i) it wouldn't work ii) it wouldn't result in the consequences you intend and iii) no-one would give money to charity anymore, it's a great idea

    There are lots of reasons for charity mergers and I can think of a few that could and should merge. Forced nationalisation wouldn't work though.

    By setting the terms, size and structure of a charity, you've just made charities part of government. "Giving to charity" is now "paying tax". People choose to give money to charity. People don't choose to pay tax. So no-one would give to these organisations.

    Competing for voluntary donations keeps charities on their toes and close to their supporters. Whilst a monopoly in theory can be more efficient, they are not accountable to anyone to be so.

    People support charities for lots of reasons. They want to choose the size of charity, charitable issue and means of response. I wouldn't describe diversity in charities as a 'disorganised mess', because I'm not a communist. I would say it is a response to social needs and donor preferences.

    What makes it more likely that a central planning secretariat could design a better structure for the charity market?

    On a side issue, there is already a lot of co-ordination on the science side when it comes to priorities for research into cancer . The reason to spend money on information campaigns is that for certain types of cancer, millions of pounds have been spent trying to understand the diseases and we aren't much closer to a 'cure'. However, we are at a stage with some cancers that early detection increases your chances of survival to 95%. Early detection is a function of public awareness. Public awareness comes from information. That's worth a couple of leaflets.
    • CommentAuthorDavid
    • CommentTimeNov 13th 2006
     

    I don't give to charity. I have no particular good reason why I don't. It could be I'm horrified at somewhere bewteen 5-10% goes to the charity and not the cause, or it could be I'm mean and nasty but I'd say its probably just solicitation fatigue, that i no longer stop and think about it.

    I think due to this I really don't have an opinion on whether 4% or 8% is an acceptable cut for Children In Need. I would however be vexed if they had no cut and the cost of running it came from our TV licenses as that would be a "charity tax".

    Are they going to do an oh-so-hilarious song and dance by a normally serious looking newsteam again this year?

    • CommentAuthorandy
    • CommentTimeNov 13th 2006
     
    The reason Children in Need seem to be getting a bit of a kicking this year is because they don't account for the literally tens of millions of pounds worth of free TV airtime and celebrity access they get.

    If any other charity could persuade the BBC to give them a dedicated free day of broadcasting, then their costs would go down too.
    • CommentAuthorDavid
    • CommentTimeNov 13th 2006 edited
     

    God please no. If anything take Children In Need off air, but not the other way. Charity programs would proliferate like reality programs. There's another thing that annoys - reality progs are purely money making excersises, so shouldn't this be the sole domain of the commercial stations? In that sense, Children In Need wouldn't exist without license payers money indirectly helping I reckon, or at best BBC would produce something humble like this instead.

    Great. Just noticed they'll be mixing my two favourite things about the BBC when they air a special Celebrity Scissorhands on appeal night. So they get free air time while still plugging their inane shows.

    • CommentAuthorPete
    • CommentTimeNov 14th 2006 edited
     
    My long respect post was lost to a timimg out, so I'll condense it down to it absolute bluntist

    So the fact that it has a left-wing economics make it evil?
    And whats all this about paying tax? I never said that.

    Oh, and we do define size and structure of a charity already through the incorperation. Those laws are already there. Another sub-clause it needed "And you can't do what someone else is doing"
    • CommentAuthorandy
    • CommentTimeNov 14th 2006
     

    So the fact that it has a left-wing economics make it evil? No, the fact that it won't work and it hasn't been thought through makes it wrong.

    And whats all this about paying tax? I never said that. No, but by implication, giving money to something whose terms are set by the government is akin to paying tax. Which is why in the UK no-one gives money to their university, but in the US everyone does.

    Incorporation is voluntary and the terms of incorporation are voluntary. My question would be, who are you to add caveats?

    • CommentAuthorandy
    • CommentTimeNov 14th 2006
     

    And as another thought, if the reason people don't support charity is the outrageous admin costs, then can I suggest volunteering? It's direct, free and you can work on projects that you choose.

    • CommentAuthorLiz
    • CommentTimeNov 14th 2006
     

    Hurrah for volunteering. If you pick the right organisation, you get to meet other like minded people and go to the pub when you've finished your good works. And it salves your (my) middle class guilt complex. I thoroughly recommend it.

    • CommentAuthorandy
    • CommentTimeNov 14th 2006
     
    or hang out with villains. whatever takes your fancy.
    • CommentAuthorDavid
    • CommentTimeNov 15th 2006 edited
     

    I couldn't volunteer either. I'm trying to work out why. I have all the time in the world for friends and family, but some random problem over there? Miserly? Selfish? Whatever it is I just can't get worked up enough about it. Perhaps poor of me, but honest at least.

    It's almost like the benevolance version of failing to grieve for Diana.

    • CommentAuthorLiz
    • CommentTimeNov 15th 2006
     

    I'm not sure I'm that worked up about it really - or at least I wasn't when I started. I was 21, just in London, skint and didn't know anyone. Volunteering seemed like the ideal social activity, and it has served me well. I don't really believe in altruism - I wouldn't do it if I didn't want to.

    • CommentAuthorandy
    • CommentTimeNov 16th 2006
     
    Question of the day.

    Nearly every volunteering programme in the country is undersubscribed - except for one.

    Can you guess which one?

    It needs 70,000 volunteers and they have a waiting list of 100,000. If you're on the waiting list, you won't be able to do anything for about six years.
    • CommentAuthorLiz
    • CommentTimeNov 16th 2006
     

    Is it...the London Olympics?

    • CommentAuthorDavid
    • CommentTimeNov 17th 2006
     

    Is it... the Kill Ben Fogley Association?

    • CommentAuthorandy
    • CommentTimeNov 17th 2006
     

    It is the Olympics. Gold star

    • CommentAuthorDavid
    • CommentTimeNov 17th 2006
     
    But it should have been the KBFA.
    • CommentAuthorLucy
    • CommentTimeNov 18th 2006
     

    poor old ben fogley. I still think he's sweet.

1 to 23 of 23

  1.