Charities with Excessively Paid CEOs

One thing in the past that used to annoy me is they would price high and you could see the same books there month after month and there was a sign on the door that said not taking donations at the moment as too much stock and I'm thinking, lower pricing so stock moves quicker and you can accept those donations to make more money for the charity. Surely if you put a sign on the door saying no more donations your admitting failure to run that business properly. In the past I heard one say we don't price too low otherwise people will just buy and sell it for more on ebay or vinted but then you think let them do that, they make a small profit and have to pack up and send the item which the shop doesn't have to do.

I do think excessive salaries are unfair and not merited especially when all the data shows that person has done a rubbish job anyway a lot of the time. A quick look shows the average wage for a CEO in the UK is 85k across all size companies. For charity CEOs it is 60k and for the largest 100 charities it is 192k which is still less than the British Heart Foundation CEO.

I've considered volunteering at a charity shop in the past but I would feel totally exploited at the BHF when the CEO is taking home more than a quarter of a million pounds plus bonuses and generous pension.

BonzoBanana On the subject of charities year's ago I worked with some one who was the volunteer secretary for a very large well known animal charity. One day, she saw some paperwork she wasn't meant to and found out that charity had millions and millions and millions tucked away, whilst actively campaigning for more money. She raised this and asked what they were doing with all this money and no one would answer her question, so she quit her position. I've never forgotten that story. I agree about not taking new stock in whilst the old stock just sits there gathering dust. Lower the prices and it would move faster.

Sherrifffroggy In theory the public has access to full accounts for charities in the UK but I've never seen what I would call full accounts. At one point it states it has to show any salaries over 60k but I would like all salaries to be available and expenses. They get fantastic tax reductions why can't we see their actual full accounts from each branch and the HQ where ever it is? The so called full accounts we see are not the same as their confidential tax returns to the government. All the benefits they get regarding tax I just don't see why we can't see those or be able to do a freedom of information request.

It gets important for charities like the countryside alliance foundation which is a charity linked to the countryside alliance that campaigns for blood sports. They are in theory separate although how that works I don't know but I would like to see how their finances interact between the two organisations.

Ultimately I'm not comfortable how charities work in this country it feels wrong a lot of the time. To me the countryside alliance could never ever be in anyway a charity or connected to a charity. Which consumer group is clearly a commercial enterprise too and should never be a charity.

So many wonderful kind people support charities but it feels like cynical manipulative people at the top who care little for the charities goals and to them its more about paying themselves a lot of money and giving themselves fantastic pensions etc.

hspexy Trustees normally appoint the CEO and most trustees are unpaid but somehow they pay these ridiculous sums to the CEOs. It makes me question how trustees are chosen.

BonzoBanana plenty of those involved in charities are socialites, so it’s not really about the money, just about accolades & ‘parties’; obviously there are some financial perks involved, as no one does anything for nothing…I’m sure if people dig around, there’s always a trail

Pjran To honest I disagree with the whole personal independence payments system and motability. 20% of new cars sold are through motability which is funded by tax payers and borrowing and its the most ridiculously generous disabled benefit in the world which we simply can't afford. On its own it has done huge damage to the UK economy funding car imports for decades. It's no surprise to me that the motability CEO is paid so much the whole system is corrupt and unfair. It's not even means tested so even billionaires can get new cars for free. I'm not sure if any do but the point is they have that option if they have any sort of disability.

People don't like to look at reviewing benefits when it is for the disabled but we have had decades of ridiculously generous disabled benefits that are a huge chunk of our national debt. Cars are the second most expensive things we buy after houses and 20% of all new car sales are free cars to the disabled it is just utter madness. Years ago I worked at a firm and a woman their got a free Renault people carrier car which was expensive and her condition was depression and obesity. I think she had to donate some of her personal independence payment but not all of it. I don't think she could believe her luck it was almost like winning the lottery.

The cost of all disabled benefits is about £80 billion a year and a big chunk is linked to motability about £17 billion directly and then there is VAT exemptions on top etc so no surprise there is plenty of money for the CEO to cream of close to £1 million for himself.

All this reckless spending of course brings us to where we are, struggling just to pay the interest on our debts and we keep borrowing. Only half way through the fiscal year and we have borrowed about £100 billion to add to the debt amount which is now over £3 trillion of main government debt. So Labour so far this year have borrowed a 30th of our national debt already and by the end of the year perhaps a 15th of our national debt. Yet despite this madness Labour are topping the political polls at the moment. We don't seem to have a clue about economics sadly. When we finally face the issues these politicians and consumers have caused it will probably mean 50-100 years of austerity and yet no doubt people will act surprised and angry that we need to do that.

BonzoBanana I’m sorry I cant agree with you on this subject. I have a disabled friend who uses part of her PIP for a car. We have spoken at length as I assumed the car was free and she educated me. The cars are not free! She has to pay an amount up front then hundreds per month. She struggles financially and has to rely on family too. Life is not easy and I’m sure you wouldnt really wish to change places with her.

Pjran Surely the only upfront cost is if she wants a more premium car rather than the more basic models that have no upfront cost and the monthly fees are taken out of her personal independence payments which are paid directly from the government. Just to make it clear I'm against the PIP payments at such a generous level and don't believe such payments should be made to such a huge number of people. As I wrote previously 20% (not an exaggeration) of all new cars sold in the UK are on the Motability scheme which is paid for by personal independence payments. The most expensive car ever bought on the Motability scheme is the Bentley Bentayga which was £160k. Obviously that is the most extreme example and obviously that would have upfront costs and clearly that person was making use of the lack of means testing for the benefit.

At a cost of £17 billion a year maybe £20 billion altogether roughly for the Motability scheme per year which has been running since 1977 the scheme has been unbelievably damaging for the UK economy and the trade deficit. Lets not forget its a lease scheme and people are getting repeatedly new cars every 3 years. We will definitely agree to disagree I believe its one of the most irresponsible and reckless policies the government has ever come up with and has done unbelievable damage to our economy and a sizeable chunk of our national debt. Even if you do simple maths and ignore the compound interest but just multiply lets say £15 billion by 40 years that is £600 billion of debt. It's probably in the area of a quarter to a fifth of our national debt. Loaning used cars to the most disabled and only using models with long service life like UK made Toyotas if new would seem far more logical. There are people that work their whole life in low paid employment that will never own a new car despite driving and the second-hand market for cars is of course far larger than the new market.

Anyway its going to go because the government can't afford it and if Reform get in it is one of the first things they are going to look at because its utterly insane cost. The government can't borrow forever already the UK economy is being downgraded as a high risk economy. The whole country faces decades of austerity due to reckless spending like this.

BonzoBanana the basic cars didn’t have a boot big enough for her wheelchair which her husband has to load and drive her to appointments. It’s certainly not a luxury car, not Audi BMW or Mercedes. I’m not sure what make it is.

I wouldn’t vote Reform.

Pjran

I'm not that keen on Reform myself but I guess there is a real chance they might get elected especially with the levels of debt Burnham is piling on. It looks like some wheelchair access vehicles do typically have upfront costs but not all and also a 5 year lease is mentioned so perhaps spread over a longer period of PIP to make the upfront payments less as an option. Just looking online if PIP was means tested it would save over £8 billion a year. A huge saving. I suspect this will be the first thing to happen before a much more aggressive cutback of the scheme happens. Also you can't claim PIP if you are retired but can continue getting it if you claimed before retirement age and I can see that going as those people can claim PIP and attendance allowance together.

Not all wheelchair accessible vehicles (WAVs) on the Motability Scheme have an upfront cost, but many do.

How Upfront Costs Work

• Advance Payment: This is a one-off, upfront fee required for many vehicles on the Motability Scheme. It covers the difference between the cost of the vehicle lease and your weekly mobility allowance.
• WAV Pricing: Because Wheelchair Accessible Vehicles require specialized and extensive conversions, their upfront Advance Payments can often be higher than those of standard cars.
• Zero or Low Cost Options: The Motability Scheme does offer a selection of WAVs and adapted vehicles with lower or no Advance Payments, though choice depends on current quarterly price lists.
• Financial Help: If you need a WAV but cannot afford the required Advance Payment, you may be eligible to apply for means-tested financial assistance through a grant from the Motability Foundation.

BonzoBanana Attendance Allowance and Personal Independence Payment (PIP) You cannot claim both at the same time

Pjran Yes I see that now, I can see people stating PIP is a lot better as it has the mobility component on top plus the daily living component where as there is no mobility side to attendance allowance its more about daily living only.

Maybe at some point both will just be a daily living component really and remove the mobility side altogether except for copying other countries where there is sales tax exemption for the disabled on buying cars etc. That's also what annoys me in PIP its like providing mobility even for those that don't work. In other countries they assist with car expenses if the disabled work and even in our system as soon as you retire normally the end of employment you are only eligible for attendence allowance. However if you reach retirement with PIP you still get it even if you haven't worked before or after retirement. It makes no moral sense.

In theory you could have up to 16 new cars under the scheme upto retirement age and even a few more after that in retirement. That is if you get a new lease every 3 years and have been disabled or other health issue from a young age. The average cost today of motability car that doesn't need an upfront payment is around £20k so 16x £20k is £320k over a lifetime for a single person for people who have back to back leases.

Incredibly at the end of the motability lease the car belongs to the motability scheme it is not even sold to recover some value for tax payers. I just find it all incredible that politicians are so utterly incompetent at their job and running the economy properly. It is so obviously unaffordable and ridiculous that such a scheme exists. Even back in 1977 we couldn't afford it and we were in a better financial position then with a trade surplus and many good indicators for the economy. It should be pointed out that the motability scheme only scaled up to about 20% of all new cars since about 2020 and at that point alarm bells should have started ringing but nothing.

The real world is you don't have stuff if you can't afford it. This benefit needed to be scaled back dramatically a long time ago and the eligibility criteria needed to be much more realistic.

BonzoBanana Let's hope that you don't need to claim benefits.

Imo, you have no clue about how much some people on PIP have to spend each month to live a reasonable life.

If you're talking about ADHD kids and the like, that's different, but you obviously have no clue about disability and people's needs.

TheChimp I would say the same of you clueless about the reality of a benefit system gone mad however it looks like even Labour are now looking at this with more focus and they will be reducing and removing benefits related to PIP and motability going forward and changing the criteria for accessing them.

https://www.somersetlive.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/andy-burnham-to-scrap-key-11181517?int_source=nba

It's not about what is right or wrong for people it is simply what is affordable. You don't borrow to pay the benefit bill. That just makes the situation long term far worse. It is one thing to say disabled people are entitled to access to a vehicle but another thing saying it has to be new and can be changed every 3 or 5 years for another new vehicle. Why should our children, grand children, great grand children, great great grand children be paying off our debts in the future. What right do we have to ruin their future with our debts because we are vile selfish individuals who keep kicking our problems down the road for others to deal with.

As we become deeper into debt all benefits are vulnerable to being cut or even removed sadly. That is what happens when a economy is on it knees with huge debts.

I strongly believe in benefits and how that makes us a better society but the benefits always have to be affordable and as we get poorer those benefits have to reduce that is just economic reality. All of us limit our spending depending on what we have to spend surely.

Imnotcheap Personally I would get the trustees to set a reasonable but low wage and just see if they have any takers. I would say £60-80,000 a year was more than enough for most charities. They are not competing in the real world, they pay almost no tax except VAT on new goods, get free goods to sell, benefit from volunteers and often their shops are rent free and still companies like BHF struggle and make poor decisions which puts them into loss.

KateGriff169

That's definitely how it feels to me for some charities. Not all charities are like this though but its not as easy to sort the good from the bad in this regard. It still feels like we have an elitist society where some people seem to think they are worth many times the wage of the people at the bottom of the organisation but there is no data to support such an excessive difference. Even though the country is bankrupt and lost most of its manufacturing etc we still have some of the most extreme wage differentials in the world. To me the most logical approach to this is having higher taxation for the extremely well paid. It would bring in more tax and would be super easy to collect as its paid through their wages. No new complicated taxation methods that could fail just simple normal taxation on wages. I would also be happy with a cap on charity wages i.e. 100k lets say. If that is not enough for them fine just go. It's a charity not a commercial business and if they want to pay more to themselves they can employ people properly and pay normal tax and run it like a commercial organization.