I do give "all that money to Macmillan quietly" since the donations are anonymous. 'Twas another poster who demanded I ride the Fred and ostentatiously collect money by demanding it with menaces from all & sundry, just because I was going to ride my bike up a few hills. And of course, my donations are still "quiet" as no one knows who this Cugel is, eh? Just in case you haven't realised, it's an internet pseudonym. Keep up!
Salaries to those who work in the charitable domain...... This undermines their charitable status to a degree, don't you think? However, if the charity is just a money collector and provider of infrastructure (including nursing expertise) you could make a case for paying for professional services such as qualified nursing. On the other hand, we do have the NHS in Britain, with the taxpayers alrready paying the professional nurses.
Can a case be made for the "infrastructure" of marketing and advertising the charity's existence and want of money? I would argue: no. That is core charity work and the definition of charity is giving with out expectation of return.
By the way, those who spend many hours a week visiting the dying in Macmillan facilites are a form of nurse and do it for nothing.....
Still, you have a point. There should be a discussion about what is pukka for charities to do and what not to do because it's more a business activity. The problem is this: if every charity worker should be paid, how do you encourage the volunteers who do immense amount of charity work for nothing? I feel the charities have fallen into that modern trap of thinking the only value is cash value. But volunteering unpaid time and effort is another kind of value, much more appropriate to a charitable organsisation than is just doing it for a salary.
If you think otherwise, why not give us your reasons? Perhaps you'll be persuasive?
Dick, calling Bill.