How much does it cost to give to charity?

[viper_man]

The past few days Ive been mulling over this, mainly through watching Deal or No Deal and reading about Mr David of Beckham.

A few people without a lot of money are winning sums around £20k and saying they are going to give it to charities, Cancer Research, helping local disabled kids etc. All of that is extremely noble and commands respect and admiration. I then got thinking of shows like this with celebrities, ie Celebrity Who Wants to be a Millionaire. People with substantial amounts of money go on there and win a few thousand, get a question wrong, and say 'oh its ok I'll make up the rest of it'. So why go on the show on the first place? Why cant they just donate money without having to appear on TV? Obviously its to boost publicity.

But why do celebrities with ridiculous amounts of money hardly give anything whereas decent honest people often do?

Take for example Mr Beckham, he could donate all of his £128M to a few charities of his choice and he wouldnt even notice. I mean, what do you do with all of that money when for the past ten years you have been on millions of pounds every year and no doubt by now have everything you ever wanted or needed.

People like that have more money than most small countries, and yet its just sitting there. I would argue in his, or other sportspeoples cases, that the playing wages are deserved in the current climate, but the rest of it for sponsorship etc should be donated to a charity.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

The day Bill Gates dies, Africa becomes the worlds richest continent ;)

[J4MIE]

I understand where you're coming from there, but I don't think you can force anyone to do anything else with their money. Fair enough they are rich and can afford it, but does that mean that they have to give some of it away?

Think how much tax they'll be paying...

[jim mcglinchey]

Well , you know what Jesus said about the rich man getting into heaven and the camel passing through the eye of a needle.

That thought cheers me up no end on a wet day in January.

[Ian McC]

I don't think you can just aim this at celebrities, businesses, that small percentage of people who own a lot of money, they are exactly the same.

I think also you will find a lot of celebs do more than you would think.

[Hazell B]

Okay, good questions.

Firstly, if you are a tax payer here in the UK, anything you donate can be claimed against by the charity and make them an extra 28% on top of your donation at zero cost to yourself (you need to sign a form, though, when you donate)

Secondly, if you're a tax payer, you can donate a fairly generous sum that will actually appear untaxed somehow or other and bring down your own tax bill. Don't know how that works in all honesty, but Carrie at the Thoroughbred Rehab Centre explained it to me, as she encourages her richer donators to do it.

Thirdly, people like the Beckhams donate millions to charity. Problem is that if they say "we donate ...." everyone says they just do it for the publicity. So they keep quiet on the whole - and who can blame them? Plus, of course, their riches don't 'just sit there' at all. Like anyone, they invest in a home, employ people, pay bills, run cars, buy a pension and so on. It's simply a larger disposable income that they have, much of which will be handled by professionals who automatically donate to charity to save on tax.

Looking at the accounts of assorted animal charities (I used to be a Treasurer for one and had to check on the other charities so we could donate our spare income to them safely) I saw loads of really quite famous names as large donators and official figureheads. One of the most surprising was Christian Bale (Batman Begins actor) and his animal charity work, mainly with horses. Mark and Lard from Radio 1 did masses for some pretty controversial charities, too. Pink, Pamela Anderson and some other shockers are shockingly generous with their time, money and fame - but you rarely get to hear about it.

Can't think of many tightwads, and wouldn't be mean enough to post their names anyway (a certain fur-wearing, fat bottomed now solo singer springs to mind, though :p : )

[viper_man]

I don't think you can just aim this at celebrities, businesses, that small percentage of people who own a lot of money, they are exactly the same.

I think also you will find a lot of celebs do more than you would think.

Yeah I meant those with huge disposable incomes in general, was just using celebrities as an example. Should have said really :crazy:

[viper_man]

...........Can't think of many tightwads, and wouldn't be mean enough to post their names anyway (a certain fur-wearing, fat bottomed now solo singer springs to mind, though :p : )

I wouldnt have said that many celebrities do donate millions. Or ok perhaps again using Beckham as an example, say for arguments sake he has donated a million pounds to charity since his career began.

Thats around 0.5% of his money, which as I said is much more than anyone needs.

But not to keep picking on one person, Id say on the whole there are a lot of tightwads. Ive read of a lot of charity auctions with many celebs present spending a lot of good money, fair enough, but the Televised or more widely reported ones are the ones where they come out of the woodwork.

If we look at the term celebrity, then a hell of a lot of people in this country alone fall into that description, so Id say a comparitively low number of them do charity work.

Kudos to those who do, but the main point of the first post was that a hell of a lot of celebs or those with bags of money choose to make a publicity stunt out of donating to charity, and that is what is wrong.

[jim mcglinchey]

Percentage wise who gives more? An ordinary working person who always reaches into their pocket when asked, or David bloody Beckham and his like with their expert -on-tax-avoidance accountants.

Vipers right. The rich didnt get rich by giving their money away

[Daniel]

The day Bill Gates dies, Africa becomes the worlds richest continent ;)
Get an education.

http://www.gatesfoundation.org/

[Hazell B]

Kudos to those who do, but the main point of the first post was that a hell of a lot of celebs or those with bags of money choose to make a publicity stunt out of donating to charity, and that is what is wrong.


This is what I don't get :confused:

The people of the UK seem to hate the rich! If they give to charity and do so openly, they are complained about (as above) then if they keep it quiet they are also complained about! They can't bloody win :mark:

How much do you give, viper? If you don't want to answer, I'll understand. So long as you understand that the rich may also not wish to tell anyone ....
If you do tell me, and it's less than .5% of your worth, I'll just think you're even cheaper than Beckham :p :

The Beckham foundation topped a million and a half last year thanks to a charity auction (which made over £500k in itself - a friend of mine was there and watched in awe) yet the Beckham's don't seem to make a fuss about their work. I'm no fan of theirs, yet think they're pretty generous considering they don't even live here in the UK and gain no tax help with the money they give.

Lots of businesses and even councils give to charity in backdoor ways. For example they could buy a piece of artwork that would leave the country or go to a private collection and never be seen in public again. They then lend the art free to a museum which can spend it's profits (from showing the art) on other projects. Without certain art, we'd have less tourists, so less in the whole economy. Oddly, we have a National Stud made up of racehorses we all own and it makes good cash for the UK, mainly down to charitable people using the horses and facilities there. There are hundreds of similar things that we just don't realise are out there making money for charity and because of charity, and often they appeal only to the rich so we never hear about them. After all, when was the last time any of us forked out £1000 per head for a Cartier polo match seat in aid of disabled kids :p :

[Alexamateo]

Plus, of course, their riches don't 'just sit there' at all. Like anyone, they invest in a home, employ people, pay bills, run cars, buy a pension and so on. It's simply a larger disposable income that they have, much of which will be handled by professionals who automatically donate to charity to save on tax.


Some here seem to be trying to say that some make too much money, and that even if millions are given, it really doesn't count because it's such a small percentage of their overall income.

Well, I agree with Hazell. Be thankful these people are wealthy,because without their wealth and their donations, probably many of these worthwhile charities wouldn't exist.

Even if they give nothing to charity, they contribute greatly to society by just spending money. Here's an example:

I broker trees and shrubs and am shipping this next month for a project that is a single residential house over $200,000 in material alone. That's just the material cost alone. I mentioned this to someone, and their comment was, Oh that's too much, it's just wrong. But I beg to differ, that money helps a lot of people. $160,000 is direct cost of goods sold going to growers and producers who employ dozens of people and in turn have their suppliers who employdozens more. It pays my truck broker who in turn pays trucking companies and truck drivers. Of the $40,000 that goes to my company, $10,000 will go directly to me (oversimplified, I'm not commissioned on gross sales, but it works out close enough for this.) The rest goes to the two girls on the office that handle my billing and collections and payables, and to my boss who smooths things out for us so we can sell. It pays the HR people who handle our health insurance and retirement and take care of other needs like that. And last but not least, it pays our owner who put up the capitol to create the company that provides all of us jobs in the first place.

Be thankful there are people and corporations with wealth, because without it we'd be subsistence farmers trying to scratch out a meager existence on barren ground. Remember, wealth is not zero-sum, just because someone has more doesn't mean you have less. It can be created. Find something you can do for someone else, and trade with them and you'll both be richer for it.

[Hazell B]

Some here seem to be trying to say that some make too much money, and that even if millions are given, it really doesn't count because it's such a small percentage of their overall income.



That's a good point that I hadn't even thought about - we make them rich in the first place! If they're also greedy and keep the cash to themselves, it's as much our fault for elivating them and allowing a stingey person wealth.

[viper_man]

This is what I don't get :confused:

The people of the UK seem to hate the rich! If they give to charity and do so openly, they are complained about (as above) then if they keep it quiet they are also complained about! They can't bloody win :mark:

Im by no means hating the rich or complaining about them giving to charity, as I keep saying Im complaining about the manner in which they do and the comparitive little that is given


How much do you give, viper? If you don't want to answer, I'll understand. So long as you understand that the rich may also not wish to tell anyone ....
If you do tell me, and it's less than .5% of your worth, I'll just think you're even cheaper than Beckham :p :

I dont mind telling at all. My sister sponsors a child in Africa for £10 a week but she is struggling with money so Im paying half to help her out, and obviously try to do some good, so thats £5 a week. I currently earn only £160 a week because Im doing a job Ive had to commit to as a favour to a friend, so I think that means Im giving around 7% of my weekly income. More than most rich people, the same as my earlier example of the normal people who win small fortunes on stuff like Deal or No Deal


The Beckham foundation topped a million and a half last year thanks to a charity auction (which made over £500k in itself - a friend of mine was there and watched in awe) yet the Beckham's don't seem to make a fuss about their work. I'm no fan of theirs, yet think they're pretty generous considering they don't even live here in the UK and gain no tax help with the money they give.

Thats fantastic there is no denying that, but compared to his fortune, which he has more than he knows what to do with, that isnt a lot. But yes granted it is still fantastic and very very good of him, but the culture of celebrity now says that there are shedloads of them with more money than they know what to do with. Im not trying to persistently pick on David Beckham here.


Lots of businesses and even councils give to charity in backdoor ways. For example they could buy a piece of artwork that would leave the country or go to a private collection and never be seen in public again. They then lend the art free to a museum which can spend it's profits (from showing the art) on other projects. Without certain art, we'd have less tourists, so less in the whole economy. Oddly, we have a National Stud made up of racehorses we all own and it makes good cash for the UK, mainly down to charitable people using the horses and facilities there. There are hundreds of similar things that we just don't realise are out there making money for charity and because of charity, and often they appeal only to the rich so we never hear about them. After all, when was the last time any of us forked out £1000 per head for a Cartier polo match seat in aid of disabled kids :p :

Agreed, that is people do honestly give money to charities and good causes.

[viper_man]

That's a good point that I hadn't even thought about - we make them rich in the first place! If they're also greedy and keep the cash to themselves, it's as much our fault for elivating them and allowing a stingey person wealth.

Again I hate to keep picking on Beckham here but he seems at this time, with his new deal, to be the most relevant example. We dont make people like that rich at all. Companies who offer him sponsorship deals do. I suppose we are connected with this through buying different products and increasing demand and supply and also competitiveness in advertising, but its a very tenuous link.

As for player wages, or singer or actors fees etc, there is a long list of things which have affected this over time, Ive had the pleasure of studying them in football very tediously over the past few years. Of course fans pay to see football matches, or concerts, or movies, as for them its devotion to what they love, and enjoyment and all the rest of it. Perhaps thats exploitation and taking advantage of the consumer by those who set the fess, but to get to my point, as before we only make them rich in a roundabout way.

[bowler]

Well , you know what Jesus said about the rich man getting into heaven and the camel passing through the eye of a needle.



The "eye of the needle" was not literally the eye of a needle.

It was the name of a gate through the city wall which was relatively small. For a camel to get through it all of the cargo and belongings had to be removed from the camel. The camel could then, without all the baggage, proceed through.

Thus what was being said was that a richman could get into heaven after making a sacrifice.

We have taken the meaning the wrong way for many years, and have therefore lost the significance of it.

[Hazell B]

....Im paying .... £5 a week. I currently earn only £160 a week .... so I think that means Im giving around 7% of my weekly income.



Your maths aren't quite right - try less than half of the 7% you estimated ;) And also remember, you said .5% of Beckham's 'fortune', as in not his weekly wage, so your fiver a week isn't even .5% of your own fortune. If you own any single item worth more than £1000, you would need to give £5 for each week you own it, if you see what I mean, to equal Beckham's .5% from your original estimate. That's before you pay tax, too. Not looking so cheap now, is he :p :

Sorry to drag the maths out and make an example, but I couldn't see any other way of making the point.

Yes, we 100% do make these people rich. If they didn't have the talent for making computers, music, films or whatever they wouldn't be wealthy I grant you, but we put the cash in their hand by purchasing the goods. We buy the magazines they are in, the items they wear, their own brands products and goods - we pay them. Without our cash, they'd be serving fries at a burger bar :p :

[viper_man]

Your maths aren't quite right - try less than half of the 7% you estimated ;) And also remember, you said .5% of Beckham's 'fortune', as in not his weekly wage, so your fiver a week isn't even .5% of your own fortune. If you own any single item worth more than £1000, you would need to give £5 for each week you own it, if you see what I mean, to equal Beckham's .5% from your original estimate. That's before you pay tax, too. Not looking so cheap now, is he :p :

Ok my maths is crap Ill admit that. If were talking about weekly wage, Im still giving more than him a large number of others earning a similar amount to him.

As for fortune, it depends how we define it. Are we talking about money, or assets, or both? If were talking about both then £5 a week is less than around 3.5% of my fortune, granted, but if we are still talking about assets and money when with regards to Beckham, he still wont be giving anywhere near 0.5% of his fortune, when you consider all the houses, cars, handbags etc. Nor anywhere near any of the decent people who regularly give, such as those winning comparitively paltry sums on stuff like Deal or No Deal.


Yes, we 100% do make these people rich. If they didn't have the talent for making computers, music, films or whatever they wouldn't be wealthy I grant you, but we put the cash in their hand by purchasing the goods. We buy the magazines they are in, the items they wear, their own brands products and goods - we pay them. Without our cash, they'd be serving fries at a burger bar :p :No Im sorry we dont directly make them rich, we make the manufacturing companies rich, it is their choice to pay celebs to endorse their own products, not ours. The idea of 'celebrity' came about as a result of more worldwide media and news exposure, more money poured into things like sports due to marketing people seeing the chance to take advantage of ordinary fans, and generally greed.

Without mega bucks sponsorship deals there would be more honest famous people rather than those with more money than sense who are driven by greed, and less 15 minute fame seekers appearing on trash tv.

Look at the 40s and 50s, there were sportsmen and women, film stars, and movie stars. And none of them told you which shaver to buy.

Anyhow, one of the original points I was making was how disgusting it is that with some celebrities, donating money is Catch 22. They will do so as long as it features appearing on a prime time game show.

[FrankenSchwinn]

anyone else remember how mad boris becker was when the media found out about his charity works in africa?

[Hazell B]

Beckham say for arguments sake he has donated a million pounds to charity since his career began.

Thats around 0.5% of his money, which as I said is much more than anyone needs.



You used the .5% viper, I was just running with it guessing you knew his worth (I have no idea what Beckham's earned). Either way, he's given something and it's a good deal mone than I can afford :p :

I remember how angry Becker was about the media opening up his love life in that store cupboard :D

[SOD]

The tie-in between celebrity and charity is "brand recognition". You can get your name in the papers, or your mug on TV if you're doing stuff for charity.

Also, charity organisers are all into self-agrandishment. The same reason as the celebs, theywant to be recognised for their charitable achievements and to purchase anti-asshole insurance. "I couldn't be a bad person, don't forget all that work I do for charity!"

[Hazell B]

Also, charity organisers are all into self-agrandishment.

That's utter rubbish :(

Some are, perhaps, but not any of the ones I've met. Anyone who believes so should really take a look around themselves and have a rethink. Parents who have disabled or dying children aren't looking for brownie points when they raise money for research into their child's problem :mark:

[Lousada]

That's utter rubbish :(

Some are, perhaps, but not any of the ones I've met. Anyone who believes so should really take a look around themselves and have a rethink. Parents who have disabled or dying children aren't looking for brownie points when they raise money for research into their child's problem :mark:

Would they have tried to raise money if they didn't have a disabled child? Or would they just got on with their lives? They only do it because it has affected them, not because of the good thoughts.

Big charities are even worse, like with the Tsunami money. Hundreds of millions were given and now positive estimates guess 60% is 'distributed'. You know how much interest that is? And that interest isn't even counted in the figures so it's just profit. Another example. A few years ago, the director of Foster Parent's (is a charity to sponsor children in Africa) was reported earning 160.000 euro a year for 3 days work per week. That's where your donations go!
Yes I am generalizing here, there are also well organized charities. A lot of volunteers and 'lower-in-line' people have the best meanings. But also a lot of people make a fair amount of money on charity. It's a business like any other.

[Lousada]

The people of the UK seem to hate the rich! If they give to charity and do so openly, they are complained about (as above) then if they keep it quiet they are also complained about! They can't bloody win :mark:

How much do you give, viper? If you don't want to answer, I'll understand. So long as you understand that the rich may also not wish to tell anyone ....
If you do tell me, and it's less than .5% of your worth, I'll just think you're even cheaper than Beckham :p :


If you have to mention you are giving to charity, you are doing it for your ego, and not for the good deeds. Even more offending to me is when celebrity millionaires like Bono order people to donate money. Yet he could donate a euro per person living in the EU and still be filthy rich.
I don't care that they donate money and get a tax-cut, and I don't even care that is the sole reason they donate. They earned their money they can do what they want with it. But stop bothering me pretending they have morals and act like anyone who doesn't give a huge sum is less morale.

[Hazell B]

That I'll agree with, to some extent. However, how do any of us know if somebody would have raised money or not if they weren't affected by something.

I'm not at all ill, yet have raised cash for assorted charity ;)

Some of the larger, often 'thrown together' charities that suddenly appear and gain millions, like the Asian disaster funds, are a total cock-up and deserve to be publicly shown for what they are. That's why when this forum was busy preening itself for giving money I kept quiet last time - it was obviously going to be a mess as none of the organisations were working well together. The Princess Diana Fund is exactly the same ;)

But many of the small, medium and even larger funds are very well organised. They have tiny outlay and waste almost nothing on admin. Look at any registered charity's accounts (they have to be made public and are easy to find) and you'll see what I mean. For example, the RSPCA head office spends millions on rubbish while it's branches don't waste a penny (bet you didn't know they're all individual charties pretty much, did you?) and Guide Dogs for the Blind just give money away willy nilly yet Hearing Dogs for the Deaf are watching every pound.

Seriously, it's not all about brownie points. Ask the field officers for homelessness, child abuse and animal rescue charities how often they do it for the pats on the back :mark:

[Hazell B]

If you have to mention you are giving to charity, you are doing it for your ego, and not for the good deeds.
....

But stop bothering me pretending they have morals and act like anyone who doesn't give a huge sum is less morale.

You're offensive.

I'm not bothering you, you chose to read the thread of your own will :s

[Lousada]

You're offensive.

I'm not bothering you, you chose to read the thread of your own will :s

My remarks are general and not aimed at you. I'm not saying you are bothering me, I mean celebrities that pop-up on tv about how much they give are bothering me.

[Daniel]

I don't care that they donate money and get a tax-cut, and I don't even care that is the sole reason they donate. They earned their money they can do what they want with it. But stop bothering me pretending they have morals and act like anyone who doesn't give a huge sum is less morale.

Nothing irritates me more than someone like yourself coming out and telling someone that they have no morals or are pretending to have morals.

There's a line and you overstepped it.