Will i see a decent government before i die?

[ageingpartyfiend]

He’s the only sitting MP who donates 100% of his salary to good causes around his constituency. Can’t knock him for that, so he’s clearly not in it for the money.

I'm not knocking him for that, I'm sure it helps. I also suspect it's a performative gesture, and it's just pocket change for him isn't it?

I give £5 a week to a charity which I'm sure is a higher % of wealth than he donates. I don't make a song and dance about it either

Man of the people my hairy arse. Deeply unpleasant human, imo.

 

[LoginNotSecure]

I'm not knocking him for that, I'm sure it helps. I also suspect it's a performative gesture, and it's just pocket change for him isn't it?

I give £5 a week to a charity which I'm sure is a higher % of wealth than he donates. I don't make a song and dance about it either

Man of the people my hairy arse. Deeply unpleasant human, imo.

And what interactions have you had with the man? Or is it just random stuff you’ve read about him online?

You shouldn’t give to charities, less than 1% goes to doing what the actual charity is set up to do. Just a pyramid scheme

 

[Shambles]

He’s the only sitting MP who donates 100% of his salary to good causes around his constituency. Can’t knock him for that, so he’s clearly not in it for the money.

He also makes a literal fortune from his driveling on Twitter. More than even Tommy “Ten Lines” Robinson. So why doesn’t he donate that far more significant income if he’s such a man of the people? Could it be because he’s simply a shitstirring gobshite?

Also, dirtying up the good name of Rupert is utterly unforgivable

 

[LoginNotSecure]

You sound bitter goy. I agree regarding the name however. All Ruperts are nonces.

 

[Shambles]

You sound bitter goy. I agree regarding the name however. All Ruperts are nonces.

Rupert is not a nonce, he is a Bear.

 

[alasdairm]

You shouldn’t give to charities, less than 1% goes to doing what the actual charity is set up to do.

i don't think there's much truth to this.

generally speaking, efficient charities spend between 75% and 90% of donations on the cause.

there are examples of infamously inefficient charities but they tend to be infrequent exceptions to the rule.

a few well-known charities come immediately to mind so i looked them up:

• save the children - 84% spent on programs relative to overhead
• the red cross - 89% spent on programs relative to overhead
• united way - 85% spent on programs relative to overhead
• bill & melinda gates foundation - 86% spent on programs relative to overhead
• doctors without borders - 86% spent on programs relative to overhead

(sources: charity navigator; charity watch)

alasdair

 

[ageingpartyfiend]

And what interactions have you had with the man? Or is it just random stuff you’ve read about him online?

You shouldn’t give to charities, less than 1% goes to doing what the actual charity is set up to do. Just a pyramid scheme

I've never met him. Have you met Burnham? I'm guessing not. I guess you have no opinions about anyone you have never met eh.

I've listened to his interviews/talks on and off for years - I've got a decent feel for his mind I reckon. You appear quite upset about negative opinions concerning dear Rupert

I didn't state which charity did I? Am not going to either, but I'm fully aware that all but (reasonably low) running costs are donated. Less than 1%? Lmao. You do seem to enjoy a presumptuous lecture. Some charities are shithouses dear, not all of them.

 

[Bleaney]

i don't think there's much truth to this.

generally speaking, efficient charities spend between 75% and 90% of donations on the cause.

there are examples of infamously inefficient charities but they tend to be infrequent exceptions to the rule.

a few well-known charities come immediately to mind so i looked them up:

• save the children - 84% spent on programs relative to overhead
• the red cross - 89% spent on programs relative to overhead
• united way - 85% spent on programs relative to overhead
• bill & melinda gates foundation - 86% spent on programs relative to overhead
• doctors without borders - 86% spent on programs relative to overhead

(sources: charity navigator; charity watch)

alasdair

All of your examples have extremely high overhead costs, which I assume means the same in the US as it does in the UK - the ongoing expenses required to run a business that are not directly tied to producing goods or services.

So your examples all contradict the point you're making?

Or is your source of these stats just confusingly or badly worded (imo)?; '84% spent on programs, as opposed to overhead costs' would have been much clearer.

'Programs relative to overhead' reads that these programs are overhead costs, to me.

 

[alasdairm]

i see what you mean.

what i meant is that of every dollar united way spends, $85 is spent on the cause and $15 goes to overhead.

"relative to" is used in the sense of "compared to".

alasdair

 

[LoginNotSecure]

i don't think there's much truth to this.

generally speaking, efficient charities spend between 75% and 90% of donations on the cause.

there are examples of infamously inefficient charities but they tend to be infrequent exceptions to the rule.

a few well-known charities come immediately to mind so i looked them up:

• save the children - 84% spent on programs relative to overhead
• the red cross - 89% spent on programs relative to overhead
• united way - 85% spent on programs relative to overhead
• bill & melinda gates foundation - 86% spent on programs relative to overhead
• doctors without borders - 86% spent on programs relative to overhead

(sources: charity navigator; charity watch)

alasdair

Any charity that pays their staff over £100,000 is taking the piss. In my opinion, if you’re running or working for a charity, you’re doing it because you believe or love the cause, and that should be your payment.

Taking a six or seven figure income from the charity coffers is a piss take.

Also you listed overhead which doesn’t account for salaries. Most of these child focused charities are meat grinders for rich paedophiles. Look at oxfam as an example.

 

[LoginNotSecure]

I've never met him. Have you met Burnham? I'm guessing not. I guess you have no opinions about anyone you have never met eh.

I've listened to his interviews/talks on and off for years - I've got a decent feel for his mind I reckon. You appear quite upset about negative opinions concerning dear Rupert

I didn't state which charity did I? Am not going to either, but I'm fully aware that all but (reasonably low) running costs are donated. Less than 1%? Lmao. You do seem to enjoy a presumptuous lecture. Some charities are shithouses dear, not all of them.

I have! It was like eating indian street food with a weak stomach. I’m glad I don’t partake in those circles anymore. Not to mention the accent was like nails on a chalkboard.

 

[LoginNotSecure]

Rupert is not a nonce, he is a Bear.

And you tell me off for stereotyping..

 

[$park]

Talk about tipping the cash register their wages and getting nutting in return.

 

[Bleaney]

Here's Corbyn's recent take on Burnham, which I found interesting.



He broadly gives the guy his approval. He said they agreed on many things, but not everything, and that he always had a good relationship with Burnham, even when they didn't agree.

This also suggests that Burnham is decidedly to the left of the party.

He doesn't mention anything connecting Burnham to the genocide in Palestine, a subject which he discusses later on in the clip.

He discusses his views on Burnham in the first part of the video.

Corbyn goes onto mention his concerns about civil liberties being eroded under Starmer, but does not mention Burnham's stance on this issue of internet privacies and monitoring etc.

That is my main concern about Burnham tbh, with some speculating that he will carry on in the same direction that Starmer was going in.

(Corbyn is the only MP I've heard raising concerns and objections to the erosion of civil liberties. This is another example as to why he's always been 'one of the good guys' imho.)

 

[emkee_reinvented]

All of your examples have extremely high overhead costs, which I assume means the same in the US as it does in the UK - the ongoing expenses required to run a business that are not directly tied to producing goods or services.

So your examples all contradict the point you're making?

Or is your source of these stats just confusingly or badly worded (imo)?; '84% spent on programs, as opposed to overhead costs' would have been much clearer.

'Programs relative to overhead' reads that these programs are overhead costs, to me.

Thanks for clearing this up

 

[alasdairm]

Also you listed overhead which doesn’t account for salaries.

more rubbish.

in the cases i listed, management and administrative salaries are included in the overhead figure (indeed, they make up most of that overhead).

alasdair

 

[LoginNotSecure]

more rubbish.

in the cases i listed, management and administrative salaries are included in the overhead figure (indeed, they make up most of that overhead).

alasdair

More rubbish.

Those figures don’t necessarily mean that 84–89% of donations go directly to beneficiaries. Accounting rules classify many employee salaries as “program expenses,” so payroll for staff delivering services is included in the program category rather than overhead.

That means a charity can legitimately report low overhead while still spending a substantial portion of its budget on employee compensation. Program-spending ratios also don’t measure how effective those programs are or how much impact each donated £ actually has.

 

[alasdairm]

Accounting rules classify many employee salaries as “program expenses,” so payroll for staff delivering services is included in the program category rather than overhead.

of course. the salary/wages of a worker on the ground in wherever installing water purification technology is a program expense. it doesn't mean that money is not going to programs.

can you substantiate your claim with some evidence?

less than 1% goes to doing what the actual charity is set up to do.

thanks.

alasdair

 

[LoginNotSecure]

of course. the salary/wages of a worker on the ground in wherever installing water purification technology is a program expense. it doesn't mean that money is not going to programs.

can you substantiate your claim with some evidence?



thanks.

alasdair

Show me the accounting and expenses that prove your chatgpt results and I'll do the same.

Till then!

I like your small hat btw