What can be done about the avaricious and selfish

Knowing some charities pay huge salaries for CEO's, would not make me want to contribute. Who wants any donations going to support some fat cat rather than what the purpose of what the charity has been set up for. For example, David Milliband earns over $1,250,000 as CEO of a US based charity, International Rescue Committee plus additional perks such as housing allowance. I thinks that's way too much. Charities maintain that they must compete with the private sector, but they aren't the private sector they rely on donations from the public and large amounts of remuneration for their top strata undermines the goodwill of existing and potential contributors. High salaries make a mockery of what their actual purpose is for and undermine public trust. Worse still when the foot soldiers within the orgnisation are sometimes earning a pittance. That standard riposte of "well you need to pay to get the best people" is too much of a cliche" are they the best people if they're prepared to cream off people's hard earned money to go in their back pocket?

TerriBull

Knowing some charities pay huge salaries for CEO's, would not make me want to contribute. Who wants any donations going to support some fat cat rather than what the purpose of what the charity has been set up for. For example, David Milliband earns over $1,250,000 as CEO of a US based charity, International Rescue Committee plus additional perks such as housing allowance. I thinks that's way too much. Charities maintain that they must compete with the private sector, but they aren't the private sector they rely on donations from the public and large amounts of remuneration for their top strata undermines the goodwill of existing and potential contributors. High salaries make a mockery of what their actual purpose is for and undermine public trust. Worse still when the foot soldiers within the orgnisation are sometimes earning a pittance. That standard riposte of "well you need to pay to get the best people" is too much of a cliche" are they the best people if they're prepared to cream off people's hard earned money to go in their back pocket?

Well said Terribull !

Whitewavemark2

doodledog

Of course a good salary is expected by a CEO, but the question is - should it be 130 times more than his company’s employees average salary.

I think it is obscene.

No, IMO it shouldn't. But I think that should apply across sectors. I'm never sure why charities are singled out. Yes, they exist to raise money for the cause, but that can be done better if they have people in charge who know how to raise money and target relevant groups effectively. Relying on bring and buy sales and an occasional fete will not do that.

Neither I, not any of my friends and family have worked for a charity - I have no axe to grind - but running an international organisation, and the initiatives necessary to bring in a consistent income for the cause is not something most people could do, and needs to be properly renumerated.

I wouldn't be averse to a rule saying that nobody can earn more than X times the average in their company, but that's not about charities in particular, it's a much more general belief.

Today on Bluesky Dan Neidle refers to a Times article (which I haven't seen or read) which says that the increase in Scotland to the top rate of tax, from 46% to 48% appears to have considerably diminished the tax take from Scotland's tax paying high earners. He does point out here is clearly a debate to be had about that as there are several factors which could be affecting the calculation, but that's not relevant to my reason for posting this.

What he does say is

That's because people with high incomes often have an ability to control the amount of their taxable income. They can make additional pension contributions, they can take dividends instead of salary, they can defer income.

bsky.app/profile/danneidle.bsky.social/post/3mrjxw2d7og27

Which, for me, illustrates not the apparent futility of raising tax rates but the need to make taxation more equal (e.g dividends are taxed at a lower rate than earned income as well as having a tax free allowance assigned to them) and less easy for the more wealthy to avoid.

The tax free amount of dividends has been reduced to £500, after this they will be added onto your income and taxed accordingly, but they do not incur NI payments.

Salary sacrifice into one’s pension pot is tax free, you can withdraw 20% of the pot tax free, all other draw downs are taxed at 40%.

This is strictly regulated, haven’t seen any loop holes.

MaizieD

veronica678

How much is it all going to cost us? Flights or trains or petrol. Hotels. Subsistence. It's not going to be just him is it. Can't help thinking of the EU parliament packing up every six months and moving from Brussels to Strasburg and back which used to make me grind my teeth. Is it really necessary? As far as I can see it's a complete and utter waste of our tax money.

I would start saving for a set of dentures right now.

The teeth grinding does terrible things to your teeth and I doubt if the practices which annoy you are going to stop...

Ain't that the truth!

Whitewavemark2

doodledog

Of course a good salary is expected by a CEO, but the question is - should it be 130 times more than his company’s employees average salary.

I think it is obscene.

A friend of ours in Canada has 1000 employees and no-one earns more than 10 x the lowest salary.

Tizliz

Whitewavemark2

doodledog

Of course a good salary is expected by a CEO, but the question is - should it be 130 times more than his company’s employees average salary.

I think it is obscene.

A friend of ours in Canada has 1000 employees and no-one earns more than 10 x the lowest salary.

That seems a sensible multiple to me. It's not that principle that concerns me, it's that it only the charity sector that people seem to be bothered about when it comes to high salaries.

There are ways to take our water back into public ownership.
One way is The Special Administration Regime.

www.lexisnexis.co.uk/legal/guidance/special-administration-regimes-quick-guide#:~:text=Special%20administration%20regimes%20(SARs)%20are,public%20interest%20or%20economic%20stability.

The environment agency can issue unlimited fines ( thereby forcing the scum into redundancy) by issuing unlimited fines if the company has committed severe or catastrophic pollution incidents.
Unfortunately that’s not going to happen. Too many people in the position to actual fix this are not acting in our interest but for themselves 🤬

This is easy to solve, they are providing a public service, the government should control the salary of executives, there is no evidence that high salaries improve efficiency or service provided.

One word comes to my mind.. Corruption..

It was Thatcher Nanna8.

If it would cost too much to tax payers for privatising the water industry then why not impose really hefty fines on companies that are failing to provide uninterrupted supplies, illegally discharging waste into rivers, failing to repair leaks etc. This would affect company profits and consequently the money available for increased wages and dividends to shareholders.

fancythat

My vicar said this in 2017.
Since then it has only got worse.

But then I read of people who think it is fine for bosses of charities to earn a lot of money.

It was then, at this point, that I personally gave up the fight.

It does seem wrong. However people who run big companies or charities successfully need to be go getters with their eye on the ball. They have the weight of responsibility on them 24/7. Special type of person. Someone who said they did not want to be paid much to do the job unlikely to be someone with the drive to do it well.
Water companies scandalous, yes. There is apparently no clause in their contractsto do the job that says any percentage of income should be reinvested in maintenance of the system.

What happened to “ Corporation Pop”?

Start with footballers and actors

Whitewavemark - yes! like others, i agree totally. Apparently when water was privatised many people predicted exactly the problems which we now face. Water is a necessity and it is shocking that this has happened. And there are studies which show that when there is a big gap between rich and poor EVERYONE is less happy, including the rich. We need compassion, fairness, and not to be driven by greed. No one needs £ millions and millions - they can buy more and more material things but they mistake getting things they like for true happiness. Soon the lift they get from the new luxury or indulgence wears off and they look for more. The most impressive rich people give most of their away to help others - and they are surely the happiest of those who have lots of money.

Having recently moved home i find that my waste water is handled from a different company to my clean water provider- a company based in Wales- i'm in England- so i have no idea why this company(whom ive never heard of!) would have even wanted to bid on and control a little few houses water up in the north! However,also,i dont know why united utilities(who handle almost all of North wests water,fresh AND waste) are insisting on charging me almost the same monthly cost as they were for BOTH in old house,just for wastewater services.!! I cannot change to one or other for both, ìt must stay as it is apparently,so wheres our right to choose?- on subject of water companies there is NO choice as there is in fuel.I am so angry about this- lets all lobby Andy Burnham to make it public company again.(But without it costing us for the 'priveledge')

JenniRen - even Michael Heseltine couldn't see the justification in privatisation of the water industry because it would never increase competition within it. Perhaps nationalisation without compensation would give greedy speculators food for thought.

monami

Start with footballers and actors

As far as I am concerned, it has to be all or none.

Most people want to cherry pick.

Nannan2

Having recently moved home i find that my waste water is handled from a different company to my clean water provider- a company based in Wales- i'm in England- so i have no idea why this company(whom ive never heard of!) would have even wanted to bid on and control a little few houses water up in the north! However,also,i dont know why united utilities(who handle almost all of North wests water,fresh AND waste) are insisting on charging me almost the same monthly cost as they were for BOTH in old house,just for wastewater services.!! I cannot change to one or other for both, ìt must stay as it is apparently,so wheres our right to choose?- on subject of water companies there is NO choice as there is in fuel.I am so angry about this- lets all lobby Andy Burnham to make it public company again.(But without it costing us for the 'priveledge')

Welsh water is not under Andy Burnham’s control, it is managed by Welsh Government. Wales supplies a huge quantity of water to western parts of England, under licence to other companies.

That’s all the rain 😊

Yes, just not at the moment!

knspol

If it would cost too much to tax payers for privatising the water industry then why not impose really hefty fines on companies that are failing to provide uninterrupted supplies, illegally discharging waste into rivers, failing to repair leaks etc. This would affect company profits and consequently the money available for increased wages and dividends to shareholders.

All the laws are there to prosecute them.
It’s just the will to proceed that is missing. 🤬

The EA is more than willing to proceed, it’s the government who constrains them.

I can give examples, but have no wish to “out” the officers.