The charity fat cats are out of control
Following my blog, a reader wondered how much of our major charities’ income actually comes from governments (aka our taxes – thus forced donations) compared with voluntary donations. I covered this in my 2015 book The Great Charity Scandal.
I’m not a bean-counter. But looking at the financial accounts of a few major anti-poverty charities when I wrote my book, I concluded that in 2014:
- Oxfam got around £137million milked from taxpayers, which was 37 per cent of its £368million income;
- Save The Children got just under £137million from taxpayers, 48 per cent of its £284million income;
- Christian Aid received £39million from our taxes, 41 per cent of its £95million income.
The whole piece is well worth reading, not only as another comment on our problem with charity funding, but a reminder of how out of control unwitting taxpayer largesse has become.
When researching my book, I found numerous charities which looked more like self-enrichment schemes than philanthropic enterprises. For example, one spent just over £43,000 on charitable activities in one year while giving consultancies owned by the charity’s founders around £90,000 of donors’ money each. Other ‘charities’ paid large amounts renting office space in the founders’ homes and/or employed members of their founders’ families. We all remember the questionable issues around the Captain Tom charity.
I believe the massive charity industry is completely out of control and that if the Charity Commission and the Scottish and Northern Irish charity regulators had any cojones, they would set a limit of, say, 10,000 charities for the whole of the UK and force more than 190,000 ‘charities’ to merge or close down.
When researching my book, I found numerous charities which looked more like self-enrichment schemes than philanthropic enterprises. For example, one spent just over £43,000 on charitable activities in one year while giving consultancies owned by the charity’s founders around £90,000 of donors’ money each. Other ‘charities’ paid large amounts renting office space in the founders’ homes and/or employed members of their founders’ families. We all remember the questionable issues around the Captain Tom charity.
I believe the massive charity industry is completely out of control and that if the Charity Commission and the Scottish and Northern Irish charity regulators had any cojones, they would set a limit of, say, 10,000 charities for the whole of the UK and force more than 190,000 ‘charities’ to merge or close down.
8 comments:
But they'd choose the wrong 10,000 and thereby the wrong 190,000.
What would Trump do? I'll guess that he would stop all government funding and let the charities sort themselves out.
'Twas ever thus. The prof who taught me British Politics back in the 1970s was a bit of an expert on this, and said how the government relied heavily on pressure groups and charities to get things done. The group wants changes, so the government works very closely with it by ensuring that it will do those things that the government can't do. In exchange, the group gets a seat at the policy-making table, and also bags of cash to run themselves and carry out said projects.
We call them "charities", because it is a nice term which also encourages the public to stump up on an individual basis. But they are just pressure groups. If they are big and effective, it's because they've already got your money, extracted at gunpoint by HMRC.
Buy a homeless veteran a pasty, feed the birds, and sod the "charidees".
dearieme - yes they would choose the wrong 10,000, it's not the way to do it.
DJ - and that would be a quick and straightforward way to sort it out. The other stuff could come later.
Sam - that's interesting, I didn't realise the scam is so old. Maybe transparency really is creeping up on us and much of what we deplore now was always there.
We were just asked to vote for the charity our work will support this year, and were given to choices.
A quit bit of research showed that one received £650,000 of taxpayers money last year and the other received nonthing. We will probably raise about £500 for charity this year.
Every time I have put forward the local cat rescue, I've been poo pooed
Bucko - it sounds as if there isn't much you can do apart from making your point each year, although that £650,000 of taxpayers money ought to make some people think.
If an organisation received money from the taxpayer, then it is not a charity, but rather an NGO designed to sway government policies to it's own benefit. The leaders of these organisations don't want them to succeed, as it would mean them losing their highly paid, privileged, jobs. They may have begun with good intentions, but the human nature of greed and a need for power and influence crept in. Charlatans all.
Penseivat
Penseivat - I agree, charlatans. The media must know this is the game, but not a word do we hear about how deceptive it all is.
Post a Comment