A justifiable business expense?

[Owlswing]

Comments please.

https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/justgiving-takes-390-000-fees-070100808.html

[Robbie]

Yes, it's a small percentage of the millions collected. JustGiving is efficient and effective. a lot of administration is involved, no-one's 'coining it'.

[Walter]

Comments please.

https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/justgiving-takes-390-000-fees-070100808.html

If it worries you, be like me, don't give to charities .

[Owlswing]

If it worries you, be like me, don't give to charities .

I've never used 'JustGiving'. Any donations to charity I give I give direct to the charity.

[Walter]

I've never used 'JustGiving'. Any donations to charity I give I give direct to the charity.

I think you misunderstood my point.

[Owlswing]

I think you misunderstood my point.

Which was?

[Walter]

Which was?

don't give to charities

[Owlswing]

 don't give to charities

That is, of course, an alternative choice.

[Walter]

That is, of course, an alternative choice.

it is and I made it.

[Owlswing]

it is and I made it.

No argument - end of!

[Robbie]

There are charities that spend no money on admin.  Lifeboats for example.

It's simple to give to other charities like Mind or the Red Cross who take a small percentage.

Something like the Grenfell disaster is a one off (we hope) and more people will want to give in a short space of time, Just Giving handle huge amounts of moneys o I think their expenses are legitimate.  They're not ripping anyone off.

As Walter says no-one has to give.

[floo]

I prefer to give directly to charities.

[Harrowby Hall]

Say you are an accountant. You see an advert for a job as an accountant in a large charity and apply for it. The job makes demands on your skills which are appropriate for someone with your qualifications and experience. The market value of an accountant with your qualifications is, say, £50,000 pa.

At the interview you are told that although you might normally expect to be paid £50,000 you will only be paid £30,000 because the organisation is a charity. Do you consider this to be satisfactory?

[Rhiannon]

You can donate to Grenfell on the British Red Cross home page by PayPal. Doesn't get any easier than that any you know where the money is going.

[jeremyp]

There are charities that spend no money on admin.  Lifeboats for example.

I don't believe that.

They must have some permanent staff. They must have their accounts professionally audited.

[Owlswing]

Say you are an accountant. You see an advert for a job as an accountant in a large charity and apply for it. The job makes demands on your skills which are appropriate for someone with your qualifications and experience. The market value of an accountant with your qualifications is, say, £50,000 pa.

At the interview you are told that although you might normally expect to be paid £50,000 you will only be paid £30,000 because the organisation is a charity. Do you consider this to be satisfactory?

I wonder just how many accountants who work for charities have no other businesses for which they also do accountancy tasks.

Not many, I would venture to siggest.

[Robbie]

Rhiannon thanks for info re Red cross. Your point about Lifeboats may be right I was only going on what I was told about them not paying for admin (I Know people who particularly give to them because of that) but thinking about it they wooudn't be likely to have volunteer auditors.
Just found this- https://rnli.org/support-us/how-your-support-helps/where-your-money-goes

People who work for an organisation with charitable status accept they'll earn lesser salary than equivalent job elsewhere. Don't know about twenty grand less though, that seems like a big dip HH.

Yes I'd think accountants do some other work to supplement their income Owlswing, anybody would.

[Owlswing]

Rhiannon thanks for info re Red cross. Your point about Lifeboats may be right I was only going on what I was told about them not paying for admin (I Know people who particularly give to them because of that) but thinking about it they wooudn't be likely to have volunteer auditors.
Just found this- https://rnli.org/support-us/how-your-support-helps/where-your-money-goes

People who work for an organisation with charitable status accept they'll earn lesser salary than equivalent job elsewhere. Don't know about twenty grand less though, that seems like a big dip HH.

Yes I'd think accountants do some other work to supplement their income Owlswing, anybody would.

 I worked from age 15 to 67, mostly in accounts, and would have been happy even in the last days to have been paid £30K. If these accountants think this less than their due . . . .

[Robbie]

Owlswing chartered accountants can earn a lot of money depending on their specialty.Not much point in studying for years & doing very expensive examinations without some financial reward at the end of it.

http://www.icaewjobs.com/article/icaew-salary-survey-2013-/

Those who work for charitable organisations have often had a career in business and want to do something else later on in life.They've made their pile, kids grown up, house paid for and so can afford to work for less than the usual rate. Also a less corporate environment appeals - something I understand.

Charities often employ a firm of accountants/auditors who specialise in charities.

[Bubbles]

I tend to think a lot of charities have become money pots for some individuals who earn quite a lot out of it. ( even if they have to earn a living for full time work, it doesn't have to be £100,000 plus ).

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10224104/30-charity-chiefs-paid-more-than-100000.html

Most charities are run as a business, this means a lot is deducted for expenses.

Just giving as well.

In some ways I don't like it, but in others, it is the good it does do, that matters.


Just giving , for example has enabled individuals to raise money in sponsorships that was more difficult before. 
Without just giving we would be back to wandering around asking people to sponsor us on paper and have to collect the sponsorship afterwards, it's made it easy for ordinary people to support causes they feel strongly about.

5% and additional charges normally would look minimal, it's just when you are talking about raising large sums like 7million it looks a lot.

Just giving is more useful for modest causes for individuals to be sponsored for running, or having their head shaved etc.

For really big events it probably isn't as useful, but having said that, it saves having to open bank accounts for the funds and the bank most likely charges you a fee anyway.

Just giving is just useful, saves hassle, enables people to raise money for causes. Also it's easy to give the link, easy for others to pay by PayPal or card.

You don't have to try and collect it after the event.

On the whole, for just giving , I'm not against it.

It has benefits, which you have to pay a fee for.

Really big amounts need to go through an alternative imo, but I doubt if the banks would do it totally for free.

I do think charities should be accountable though and publish public accounts, so people can make their own choices.

[Harrowby Hall]

People who work for an organisation with charitable status accept they'll earn lesser salary than equivalent job elsewhere. Don't know about twenty grand less though, that seems like a big dip HH.

Yes I'd think accountants do some other work to supplement their income Owlswing, anybody would.

You seem to have misunderstood my point, Robinson, which was that the labourer is worthy of his hire.

Would you accept a lesser salary for doing a particular job merely because the employer is a charity? Surely, you would want to be paid the going rate.  Does that mean that a teacher working for Eton College would be paid less than one at Langley Grammar School up the road in Slough? (FYI - Eton College is a registered charity!)

To get back to the point of this thread - charities have expenses, such as staff costs, which have to be met from income.

[Nearly Sane]

You seem to have misunderstood my point, Robinson, which was that the labourer is worthy of his hire.

Would you accept a lesser salary for doing a particular job merely because the employer is a charity? Surely, you would want to be paid the going rate.  Does that mean that a teacher working for Eton College would be paid less than one at Langley Grammar School up the road in Slough? (FYI - Eton College is a registered charity!)

To get back to the point of this thread - charities have expenses, such as staff costs, which have to be met from income.

And there is always surely a reasonable question about whether those charges are commensurate?

Further just giving isn't a charity. It's a commercial venture.

[Harrowby Hall]

Further just giving isn't a charity. It's a commercial venture.

That is a fair point. However, it is likely that charities use Just Giving because it is an efficient way of managing donation.

[floo]

And there is always surely a reasonable question about whether those charges are commensurate?

Further just giving isn't a charity. It's a commercial venture.

A commercial venture people should avoid, if they want all their donations to go to a charity!

[Robbie]

You seem to have misunderstood my point, Robinson, which was that the labourer is worthy of his hire.

Would you accept a lesser salary for doing a particular job merely because the employer is a charity? Surely, you would want to be paid the going rate.  Does that mean that a teacher working for Eton College would be paid less than one at Langley Grammar School up the road in Slough? (FYI - Eton College is a registered charity!)

To get back to the point of this thread - charities have expenses, such as staff costs, which have to be met from income.

Oh no I quite a agree that a workman is worthy of their hire but many people want a career change mid-life and will be prepared to take a dip in salary if the job suits them, not necessarily a charity (I did that at 45 & it was a good move). Doesn't mean working for peanuts though.

Yes Justgiiving is extremely efficient, I've no problem with donating via them at odd times.