5 ms·

Yeah that's not at all the same thing as a UK charity, which has to spend all of its money on charitable purposes. They are governed by a board of volunteer, u

Yeah that's not at all the same thing as a UK charity, which has to spend all of its money on charitable purposes. They are governed by a board of volunteer, unpaid trustees who can be personally liable for its misconduct. Here's the Raspberry Pi Foundation's entry on the register: https://register-of-charities.charitycommission.gov.uk/charity-search/-/charity-details/5002372/charity-overview https://register-of-charities.charitycommission.gov.uk/chari...

paulmd 5y ago
> a UK charity, which has to spend all of its money on charitable purposes. No. > The most popular charities in the UK spend anything between 26.2% and 87.3% of their yearly income on charitable causes, according to the best available data. https://www.theweek.co.uk/fact-check/98581/fact-check-how-do-charities-spend-your-money https://www.theweek.co.uk/fact-check/98581/fact-check-how-do... Also that doesn't include accumulation of wealth in general - it's perfectly fine to sock away a billion dollars (or pounds) because in principle that money is going to go to charitable activities in the future. Sometime. But there's no legal requirement that "sometime" ever come, so it's just a slush fund. Again, please don't think of charities as being charities in the traditional sense of feeding nuns and orphans. It may be better to think of them as "non-shareholder corporations". They are corporations, which make money, and accumulate wealth, which is controlled by the board. The difference is that the purpose of the accumulation of wealth isn't for the benefit of shareholders, but in principle it's for the public. In practice it is a slush fund for the board. You've got tons of UK universities that build up huge endowments, right? Do you think they're the only ones who do that? And not everybody is using that money for scholarships, as it were...
- mattbee 5y ago
  I know how to think about UK charities, thanks mate, I am trying to offer perspective, experience and knowledge that's different to yours. I'm a trustee of a small UK charity, I do their books, I'm in touch with lots of other trustees and in no way can these companies be run as a "slush fund for the board". The regulatory regime demands too much transparency for that to happen at any scale. > The most popular charities in the UK spend anything between 26.2% and 87.3% of their yearly income on charitable causes, according to the best available data. ... > Also that doesn't include accumulation of wealth in general - it's perfectly fine to sock away a billion dollars (or pounds) because in principle that money is going to go to charitable activities in the future. Sometime. But there's no legal requirement that "sometime" ever come, so it's just a slush fund. Yes, UK charities are allowed to spend on fundraising, investment and may build up reserves. Some of those reserves might be restricted, for specific purposes even within the definition of their charitable purposes, and that needs particular accounting. But that money is absolutely locked up for their registered purposes, it can't go to personal benefits, and their boards of unpaid trustees are on the hook for mismanagement. If they spent every pound they received on their purposes, lots of charities would cease to exist (or exist 100% on grants from other organisations). That would certainly suit a lot of simple-minded people's perspective on "what a charity should be" but it would shrink the sector to almost nothing. (I once did data entry for Oxfam, entering direct debit donations posted to the organisation - a few angry people liked to use those appeal envelopes to protest about the fact that Oxfam advertised at all).
  - unfocussed_mike 5y ago
    Thank you for this. Part of the problem with the cynical view of charities that you're responding to is that if it goes unchallenged, it actually becomes practically impossible to help charities improve their charitable efficiency. If people think all charities are BS, they stop donating, and it becomes meaningless to say charity X is doing a better job on a structural level than charity Y, which is for sure important information for donors. I've worked on some stuff for a social organisation that is now a registered charity, and it is amazing how deep the tendrils of the regulations actually go -- the extent to which things have to be structured to avoid conveying benefits that aren't the objectives of the charity. (I also applaud you for doing what you do)

paulmd 5y ago

> a UK charity, which has to spend all of its money on charitable purposes. No. > The most popular charities in the UK spend anything between 26.2% and 87.3% of their yearly income on charitable causes, according to the best available data. https://www.theweek.co.uk/fact-check/98581/fact-check-how-do-charities-spend-your-money https://www.theweek.co.uk/fact-check/98581/fact-check-how-do... Also that doesn't include accumulation of wealth in general - it's perfectly fine to sock away a billion dollars (or pounds) because in principle that money is going to go to charitable activities in the future. Sometime. But there's no legal requirement that "sometime" ever come, so it's just a slush fund. Again, please don't think of charities as being charities in the traditional sense of feeding nuns and orphans. It may be better to think of them as "non-shareholder corporations". They are corporations, which make money, and accumulate wealth, which is controlled by the board. The difference is that the purpose of the accumulation of wealth isn't for the benefit of shareholders, but in principle it's for the public. In practice it is a slush fund for the board. You've got tons of UK universities that build up huge endowments, right? Do you think they're the only ones who do that? And not everybody is using that money for scholarships, as it were...

mattbee 5y ago
I know how to think about UK charities, thanks mate, I am trying to offer perspective, experience and knowledge that's different to yours. I'm a trustee of a small UK charity, I do their books, I'm in touch with lots of other trustees and in no way can these companies be run as a "slush fund for the board". The regulatory regime demands too much transparency for that to happen at any scale. > The most popular charities in the UK spend anything between 26.2% and 87.3% of their yearly income on charitable causes, according to the best available data. ... > Also that doesn't include accumulation of wealth in general - it's perfectly fine to sock away a billion dollars (or pounds) because in principle that money is going to go to charitable activities in the future. Sometime. But there's no legal requirement that "sometime" ever come, so it's just a slush fund. Yes, UK charities are allowed to spend on fundraising, investment and may build up reserves. Some of those reserves might be restricted, for specific purposes even within the definition of their charitable purposes, and that needs particular accounting. But that money is absolutely locked up for their registered purposes, it can't go to personal benefits, and their boards of unpaid trustees are on the hook for mismanagement. If they spent every pound they received on their purposes, lots of charities would cease to exist (or exist 100% on grants from other organisations). That would certainly suit a lot of simple-minded people's perspective on "what a charity should be" but it would shrink the sector to almost nothing. (I once did data entry for Oxfam, entering direct debit donations posted to the organisation - a few angry people liked to use those appeal envelopes to protest about the fact that Oxfam advertised at all).
- unfocussed_mike 5y ago
  Thank you for this. Part of the problem with the cynical view of charities that you're responding to is that if it goes unchallenged, it actually becomes practically impossible to help charities improve their charitable efficiency. If people think all charities are BS, they stop donating, and it becomes meaningless to say charity X is doing a better job on a structural level than charity Y, which is for sure important information for donors. I've worked on some stuff for a social organisation that is now a registered charity, and it is amazing how deep the tendrils of the regulations actually go -- the extent to which things have to be structured to avoid conveying benefits that aren't the objectives of the charity. (I also applaud you for doing what you do)