Comments on: Sponsorship (Part 2) http://www.tymchak.com/blog/?p=670 Ivor's insights into the human condition (and some laughs too) Sat, 13 Apr 2013 23:11:09 -0700 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8 hourly 1 By: Corporations have no place in education – Dan Ladds: Writer, Speaker, Coder, Pirate http://www.tymchak.com/blog/?p=670&cpage=1#comment-14832 Corporations have no place in education – Dan Ladds: Writer, Speaker, Coder, Pirate Sat, 04 Feb 2012 15:49:33 +0000 http://www.tymchak.com/blog/?p=670#comment-14832 [...] they would have been unanimously rejected.  Instead, by going under the banner of “doing it for charity“, anyone who was critical of the idea would appear to be a miser.  Apparently, whether [...] [...] they would have been unanimously rejected.  Instead, by going under the banner of “doing it for charity“, anyone who was critical of the idea would appear to be a miser.  Apparently, whether [...]

]]> By: Ivor Tymchak http://www.tymchak.com/blog/?p=670&cpage=1#comment-14807 Ivor Tymchak Mon, 30 Jan 2012 14:55:00 +0000 http://www.tymchak.com/blog/?p=670#comment-14807 Peter, to some extent, the state already divvies up our contributions in the form of benefits to those less able to provide for themselves as well as handouts to arms manufacturers who I would rather, they did not support. I take your point though, most charities are supported by people who have had a loved one succumb to the disease that a charity vows to fight etc. Sure, if they want to add extra impetus to the cause then so be it (although I can't imagine throwing any more money at cancer charities is going to help, there is already an enormous amount of research being done by big pharma in the hope of coming up with a patentable, golden goose of a product!). But here's an interesting proposition for you. Bettakultcha want s to go to Berlin and put on a gig there to help empower people. It's a good cause. It's also bold and challenging. Would you like to contribute to the 'charitable' work that it does and help fund this project? Peter, to some extent, the state already divvies up our contributions in the form of benefits to those less able to provide for themselves as well as handouts to arms manufacturers who I would rather, they did not support. I take your point though, most charities are supported by people who have had a loved one succumb to the disease that a charity vows to fight etc. Sure, if they want to add extra impetus to the cause then so be it (although I can’t imagine throwing any more money at cancer charities is going to help, there is already an enormous amount of research being done by big pharma in the hope of coming up with a patentable, golden goose of a product!).

But here’s an interesting proposition for you. Bettakultcha want s to go to Berlin and put on a gig there to help empower people. It’s a good cause. It’s also bold and challenging. Would you like to contribute to the ‘charitable’ work that it does and help fund this project?

]]> By: Peter Ramsden http://www.tymchak.com/blog/?p=670&cpage=1#comment-14806 Peter Ramsden Mon, 30 Jan 2012 13:38:45 +0000 http://www.tymchak.com/blog/?p=670#comment-14806 Ivor, You ask 'why should charities exist, this should be provided for by the state'. I think you are aiming for a Utopian solution which could never be. Charities exist pure and simply because the state cannot provide for all - let alone does it have the desire or more importantly the ability to do so. The old adage Charity begins at home is so true. I believe that to mean that charity is within each of us. What I mean by that is that we want to give to those areas to which we have some emotional 'connection'. We therefore feel good about giving. Leaving it to the state to divvy up our contributions does not cut it for me. I do not want some public servant deciding where my donations go based on who they think is deserving. After all, we have seen what some of our public servants do with public money. Let's just be thankful that some people set up charities and some people find ways to raise funds for said charities to put to good use. P Ivor,

You ask ‘why should charities exist, this should be provided for by the state’. I think you are aiming for a Utopian solution which could never be.

Charities exist pure and simply because the state cannot provide for all – let alone does it have the desire or more importantly the ability to do so.

The old adage Charity begins at home is so true. I believe that to mean that charity is within each of us. What I mean by that is that we want to give to those areas to which we have some emotional ‘connection’. We therefore feel good about giving. Leaving it to the state to divvy up our contributions does not cut it for me.

I do not want some public servant deciding where my donations go based on who they think is deserving. After all, we have seen what some of our public servants do with public money.

Let’s just be thankful that some people set up charities and some people find ways to raise funds for said charities to put to good use.

P

]]> By: Ivor Tymchak http://www.tymchak.com/blog/?p=670&cpage=1#comment-14805 Ivor Tymchak Mon, 30 Jan 2012 12:48:49 +0000 http://www.tymchak.com/blog/?p=670#comment-14805 Thanks for the comment, Peter although I feel you miss the point, somewhat. Firstly, we need to question why charities exist at all, why aren't those services provided by the state? Secondly, a desire to sponsor some crazy scheme (such as might be thought up by the team from 'Jackass') loses the connection with the cause of the charity and could lead to all sorts of contradictions (a burger eating contest designed to raise funds for obesity research). Your example is perfectly legitimate—offering your services for a charity donation rather than a fee. Everything in it makes sense; no wasted promotion, no emotional blackmail, no conflict of interest. Unfortunately, the world is more complicated (and cynical) than that... Thanks for the comment, Peter although I feel you miss the point, somewhat.

Firstly, we need to question why charities exist at all, why aren’t those services provided by the state? Secondly, a desire to sponsor some crazy scheme (such as might be thought up by the team from ‘Jackass’) loses the connection with the cause of the charity and could lead to all sorts of contradictions (a burger eating contest designed to raise funds for obesity research).

Your example is perfectly legitimate—offering your services for a charity donation rather than a fee. Everything in it makes sense; no wasted promotion, no emotional blackmail, no conflict of interest. Unfortunately, the world is more complicated (and cynical) than that…

]]> By: Peter Ramsden http://www.tymchak.com/blog/?p=670&cpage=1#comment-14804 Peter Ramsden Mon, 30 Jan 2012 12:26:07 +0000 http://www.tymchak.com/blog/?p=670#comment-14804 Ivor, I have no worries about how money is raised for charity whether it is for self gratification or not. Charities need funds to deliver services. No donations means no services If the person concerned in your example was going to do the trip anyway and wanted to tap into other peoples 'desires' to sponsor such an adventure then why not. Charity works best when there are many beneficiaries I can see your point that they could just donate and not do the adventure anyway. However that misses the point of human nature. We all have different needs and desires and it is these that will drive people to donate or not. I did something recently that helped promote me and helped others to gain new skills at little cost provided they made a donation to charity. Several charities benefited. If I followed your lead and had not 'promoted' my charity offer, five charities would not have benefited from me giving my time for free. Charity is to be welcomed in all its guises providing it delivers benefits to those the charity claims to support. Best wishes, Peter Ivor,

I have no worries about how money is raised for charity whether it is for self gratification or not. Charities need funds to deliver services. No donations means no services

If the person concerned in your example was going to do the trip anyway and wanted to tap into other peoples ‘desires’ to sponsor such an adventure then why not. Charity works best when there are many beneficiaries

I can see your point that they could just donate and not do the adventure anyway. However that misses the point of human nature. We all have different needs and desires and it is these that will drive people to donate or not.

I did something recently that helped promote me and helped others to gain new skills at little cost provided they made a donation to charity. Several charities benefited. If I followed your lead and had not ‘promoted’ my charity offer, five charities would not have benefited from me giving my time for free.

Charity is to be welcomed in all its guises providing it delivers benefits to those the charity claims to support.

Best wishes,

Peter

]]> By: Ivor Tymchak http://www.tymchak.com/blog/?p=670&cpage=1#comment-14803 Ivor Tymchak Mon, 30 Jan 2012 12:19:18 +0000 http://www.tymchak.com/blog/?p=670#comment-14803 The charity concept kinda falls down if they trot out the old bankers excuse of 'high salaries needed to attract the best staff'. Surely,charities are about passion, commitment and social justice? If they pay for any hired gun then what's the difference between them and big business? None, I tell you. The charity concept kinda falls down if they trot out the old bankers excuse of ‘high salaries needed to attract the best staff’. Surely,charities are about passion, commitment and social justice? If they pay for any hired gun then what’s the difference between them and big business? None, I tell you.

]]> By: Dan Ladds http://www.tymchak.com/blog/?p=670&cpage=1#comment-14802 Dan Ladds Mon, 30 Jan 2012 12:08:35 +0000 http://www.tymchak.com/blog/?p=670#comment-14802 People seem to assume that because an organisation is a "charity", all its money must go to good causes. The reality is that while charities aren't allowed to pay profits to shareholders like regular companies are, that doesn't stop them paying some staff very highly: http://society.guardian.co.uk/salarysurvey/table/0,12406,1042677,00.html Of course, charities use the same excuse as the banks: that they need high salaries to attract excellent staff who will save them more money in total. Apparently. People seem to assume that because an organisation is a “charity”, all its money must go to good causes.

The reality is that while charities aren’t allowed to pay profits to shareholders like regular companies are, that doesn’t stop them paying some staff very highly:

http://society.guardian.co.uk/salarysurvey/table/0,12406,1042677,00.html

Of course, charities use the same excuse as the banks: that they need high salaries to attract excellent staff who will save them more money in total. Apparently.

]]> By: Ivor Tymchak http://www.tymchak.com/blog/?p=670&cpage=1#comment-14801 Ivor Tymchak Mon, 30 Jan 2012 11:49:40 +0000 http://www.tymchak.com/blog/?p=670#comment-14801 Thanks for visiting, Claire. It would seem that 'charity' has become big business just like any other profit seeking commercial enterprise. Hardly surprising really, considering the disconnect people have with money, sharing, fairness and consumerism. Plus, charities have a kind of 'banker status' in that no one can criticise them for what they do. This cannot be good for any kind of democracy. Thanks for visiting, Claire. It would seem that ‘charity’ has become big business just like any other profit seeking commercial enterprise. Hardly surprising really, considering the disconnect people have with money, sharing, fairness and consumerism. Plus, charities have a kind of ‘banker status’ in that no one can criticise them for what they do. This cannot be good for any kind of democracy.

]]> By: Claire M http://www.tymchak.com/blog/?p=670&cpage=1#comment-14800 Claire M Mon, 30 Jan 2012 11:13:01 +0000 http://www.tymchak.com/blog/?p=670#comment-14800 It is the charity "muggers" on the streets that are a particular sore point for me - fresh air and a walk at at lunchtime has turned into running a gauntlet, with cheery people who pretend to be my friend trying to guilt trip me into handing over my bank details for "their" charity. I'm not sure if they are agency staff but there's an increasing number of them who seem to work for a remrkably large number of charities - same face, different T-shirt. I've wondered - but not yet been brave enough to politely enquire - whether it might be more use to the charity for them to waive their wage and donate it to the charity in question rather than harassing people, many of whom may already have arrangements in place with their own charities for regular donations. Grrrr. It is the charity “muggers” on the streets that are a particular sore point for me – fresh air and a walk at at lunchtime has turned into running a gauntlet, with cheery people who pretend to be my friend trying to guilt trip me into handing over my bank details for “their” charity. I’m not sure if they are agency staff but there’s an increasing number of them who seem to work for a remrkably large number of charities – same face, different T-shirt. I’ve wondered – but not yet been brave enough to politely enquire – whether it might be more use to the charity for them to waive their wage and donate it to the charity in question rather than harassing people, many of whom may already have arrangements in place with their own charities for regular donations. Grrrr.

]]> By: Ivor Tymchak http://www.tymchak.com/blog/?p=670&cpage=1#comment-14799 Ivor Tymchak Mon, 30 Jan 2012 10:34:58 +0000 http://www.tymchak.com/blog/?p=670#comment-14799 Thanks Dan. I'd never really scrutinized the significance of charities before but you expose the elephant in the room with your observation that they are, in fact, an indictment of our broken socioeconomic system. Why do we have charities for the homeless? Because we f***ing have homeless people in our society! What does that say about the system? Thanks Dan. I’d never really scrutinized the significance of charities before but you expose the elephant in the room with your observation that they are, in fact, an indictment of our broken socioeconomic system. Why do we have charities for the homeless? Because we f***ing have homeless people in our society! What does that say about the system?

]]>