Re: Charity Cheat
Posted: Mon Feb 01, 2016 3:30 pm
I expected errors in the English language from the colonials but not from you.B.Toomer wrote:You're right, all the kids that should of benefited from his so called "charity".
I expected errors in the English language from the colonials but not from you.B.Toomer wrote:You're right, all the kids that should of benefited from his so called "charity".
Bomber wrote:Do you have a charity?B.Toomer wrote:You're right, all the kids that should of benefited from his so called "charity".
I don't but on the basis of this "charity", I'm thinking of setting one up.Bomber wrote:Bomber wrote:Do you have a charity?B.Toomer wrote:You're right, all the kids that should of benefited from his so called "charity".
You're forgetting the salary I would pay my friend to run it, I would pay a rent to my parents for the office space.....Bomber wrote:So lets say you do.
You raise $1m (for example), but you travelled around the world over a period of 6 months to get it. Your costs are say, $400k over this period, so you get re-imbursed accordingly.
The charity still benefits the tune of $600k.
Good thing or bad thing?
They still have $160k more than if your charity wasn't formed. Still see it as a win. Donors should know well enough by now how things work in the real world. If anything, its maybe more about disclosure. If its made clear that 100% of funds don't go direct to the charity, it merely should be highlighted as such.God is an Englishman wrote:You're forgetting the salary I would pay my friend to run it, I would pay a rent to my parents for the office space.....Bomber wrote:So lets say you do.
You raise $1m (for example), but you travelled around the world over a period of 6 months to get it. Your costs are say, $400k over this period, so you get re-imbursed accordingly.
The charity still benefits the tune of $600k.
Good thing or bad thing?
That would leave $160k for the charity. Nice work if you can get it
As I said, I'm thinking of forming one. $160k goes where it should the rest goes in mine and my families pocket.Bomber wrote:They still have $160k more than if your charity wasn't formed. Still see it as a win. Donors should know well enough by now how things work in the real world. If anything, its maybe more about disclosure. If its made clear that 100% of funds don't go direct to the charity, it merely should be highlighted as such.God is an Englishman wrote:You're forgetting the salary I would pay my friend to run it, I would pay a rent to my parents for the office space.....Bomber wrote:So lets say you do.
You raise $1m (for example), but you travelled around the world over a period of 6 months to get it. Your costs are say, $400k over this period, so you get re-imbursed accordingly.
The charity still benefits the tune of $600k.
Good thing or bad thing?
That would leave $160k for the charity. Nice work if you can get it
It will be set up as a foundation with money going to various different places. This will ensure its harder for people to realise how little money is being paid out and also that you have no real knowledge of where your money is goingBomber wrote:I'm in depending on the charity. Hopefully not for the under-privileged kids otherwise known as young Millwall supporters.
As long as it keeps you in the loop to be asked to come on to TV reality shows and get paid a squillion more, then I'm all for it.God is an Englishman wrote:It will be set up as a foundation with money going to various different places. This will ensure its harder for people to realise how little money is being paid out and also that you have no real knowledge of where your money is goingBomber wrote:I'm in depending on the charity. Hopefully not for the under-privileged kids otherwise known as young Millwall supporters.
Good luck finding a charity returning 60c the dollar to the charitable cause.Bomber wrote:So lets say you do.
You raise $1m (for example), but you travelled around the world over a period of 6 months to get it. Your costs are say, $400k over this period, so you get re-imbursed accordingly.
The charity still benefits the tune of $600k.
Good thing or bad thing?
Was just illustrating an example (of charity still gaining a benefit). As I said, I'm in!El Paso del Norte wrote:Good luck finding a charity returning 60c the dollar to the charitable cause.Bomber wrote:So lets say you do.
You raise $1m (for example), but you travelled around the world over a period of 6 months to get it. Your costs are say, $400k over this period, so you get re-imbursed accordingly.
The charity still benefits the tune of $600k.
Good thing or bad thing?
A scam. As GIAE said, great work if you can get it.
I thought exactly that during the recent cricket raising for the McGrath Foundation.B.Toomer wrote:The problem is, next time a charity comes calling, people will be reluctant to donate, knowing that only a small amount will find its way to the unfortunate. People like shyster Warne make it hard for genuine charities.
So you'd prefer nothing for certain charities as opposed to something. Fair enough. Let charities stand on their own feet from now on.God is an Englishman wrote:I thought exactly that during the recent cricket raising for the McGrath Foundation.B.Toomer wrote:The problem is, next time a charity comes calling, people will be reluctant to donate, knowing that only a small amount will find its way to the unfortunate. People like shyster Warne make it hard for genuine charities.
Would you still drop it in the tin if you knew only 16% was going to the charity?Bomber wrote:So you'd prefer nothing for certain charities as opposed to something. Fair enough. Let charities stand on their own feet from now on.God is an Englishman wrote:I thought exactly that during the recent cricket raising for the McGrath Foundation.B.Toomer wrote:The problem is, next time a charity comes calling, people will be reluctant to donate, knowing that only a small amount will find its way to the unfortunate. People like shyster Warne make it hard for genuine charities.
When I drop coins in a tin I don't ask about what percentage goes where but I'm also not naïve to think the poor sod standing there all day doesn't deserve a cut either.
Surely by now we know it aint no perfect world out there.
The usual insults, which means you're still easy to stir up even when not trying. I'm not surprised when I chat to other poms about this forum they are embarrassed to have you on their "team".B.Toomer wrote:Bumber, you are simply condoning a proven cheat. We're not talking about "coins in a tin" here, we're talking about hundreds of thousands of dollars that warne has siphoned off to himself and his family. Your views on this is why this isn't a perfect world. But then, I wouldn't expect any less of your type.
In that case, I assume you have no problem paying for my lunch on the 19th then. It's OK, I'll give $3.20 to charity afterwards.Bomber wrote:First, in answer to Hawkesy, I couldn't care less that 16c in the dollar went to the charity. It's 16c per $, more than they would otherwise have.
Since when are you are registered charity? I know you live in the east, which comes close on that alone, but remember I choose which charities to give to and those which I don't. Seems someone we both know did reasonably well out of some of my charity a few years ago.God is an Englishman wrote:In that case, I assume you have no problem paying for my lunch on the 19th then. It's OK, I'll give $3.20 to charity afterwards.Bomber wrote:First, in answer to Hawkesy, I couldn't care less that 16c in the dollar went to the charity. It's 16c per $, more than they would otherwise have.
Who was that?Bomber wrote:Since when are you are registered charity? I know you live in the east, which comes close on that alone, but remember I choose which charities to give to and those which I don't. Seems someone we both know did reasonably well out of some of my charity a few years ago.God is an Englishman wrote:In that case, I assume you have no problem paying for my lunch on the 19th then. It's OK, I'll give $3.20 to charity afterwards.Bomber wrote:First, in answer to Hawkesy, I couldn't care less that 16c in the dollar went to the charity. It's 16c per $, more than they would otherwise have.
I'll let you know as soon as it's set up.Bomber wrote:What's your charity? I'll want to see your registration
Who are beneficiaries of this charity and let me know what percentage goes to it directly please.God is an Englishman wrote:I'll let you know as soon as it's set up.Bomber wrote:What's your charity? I'll want to see your registration
The GIAE Foundation
Bomber wrote:Who are beneficiaries of this charity and let me know what percentage goes to it directly please.God is an Englishman wrote:I'll let you know as soon as it's set up.Bomber wrote:What's your charity? I'll want to see your registration
The GIAE Foundation
Bomber wrote:When I drop coins in a tin I don't ask about what percentage goes where but I'm also not naïve to think the poor sod standing there all day doesn't deserve a cut either.