[AnnieK]

CEOs of charities are amongst the highest paid. The CEO of Cancer Research, Michelle Mitchell, was paid a basic salary of £215,500 between April 2020 and March 2021. It is not unusual for top level employees to be paid well into 6 figures

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by AnnieK

CEOs of charities are amongst the highest paid. The CEO of Cancer Research, Michelle Mitchell, was paid a basic salary of £215,500 between April 2020 and March 2021. It is not unusual for top level employees to be paid well into 6 figures

It's pretty disgraceful though imo, obviously they have to be paid something but money like that paid by ordinary people trying to help those in need is a bit of a slap in the face to them

[AnnieK]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

It's pretty disgraceful though imo, obviously they have to be paid something but money like that paid by ordinary people trying to help those in need is a bit of a slap in the face to them

Yeah, I don't disagree with you Niamh.

Its a reason I have heard a lot of people using for supporting smaller, local charities as the money is not absorbed on as many salaries.

The big charities get Government help too which smaller ones don't and have to rely on.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by AnnieK

CEOs of charities are amongst the highest paid. The CEO of Cancer Research, Michelle Mitchell, was paid a basic salary of £215,500 between April 2020 and March 2021. It is not unusual for top level employees to be paid well into 6 figures

To be fair, I actually DON'T think £200k is excessive for a CEO position at a large charity, especially when you consider what the CEO's of large for-profit organisations are making. It's actually "only" about £125k take-home.

There are charities where people are making millions though and that is obviously an absolute joke.

[bots]

the problem is in the name .... charity. They raise money by false pretences. It's not really a charity in the true sense of the word. It's an organisation that provides assistance to particular areas of depravation while still paying themselves handsome remuneration.

There is a level of expectation (usually wrong) that charities consist of volunteers that do the work for free. That the majority of donations make there way to the afflicted group and it just doesn't work like that

If Bob Geldofs live aid taught us anything, it was that the majority that participate are in it for the money and or fame. That corruption at every step in the process means that only a tiny proportion of the donated funds actually get to the intended recipients

For me to give to a charity these days, i have to see total transparency on who gets what

[user104658]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

the problem is in the name .... charity. They raise money by false pretences. It's not really a charity in the true sense of the word. It's an organisation that provides assistance to particular areas of depravation while still paying themselves handsome remuneration.

There is a level of expectation (usually wrong) that charities consist of volunteers that do the work for free. That the majority of donations make there way to the afflicted group and it just doesn't work like that

If Bob Geldofs live aid taught us anything, it was that the majority that participate are in it for the money and or fame. That corruption at every step in the process means that only a tiny proportion of the donated funds actually get to the intended recipients

For me to give to a charity these days, i have to see total transparency on who gets what

I do think that any charity should spend at MOST 25% on running costs, with 75% actually going to charity, or I'd take it as an indication that something isn't right. Either deliberate profiteering or just over-stretching what they're doing vs what they're bringing in. Should be transparent and falling below that for more than a short period of time should trigger someone looking into it and potential loss of charity status.