Gap between rich and poor growing, fuelling global anger - Oxfam

[phantomfiddler]

It sounds rather hypocritical for this info to be coming from Oxfam who I have been told consume 99% of donated funds in the course of management ????

[malibukid]

6 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Sorry, but think about it- who has all the guns?

in the U.S. the army is outnumbered.

 

[bristolboy]

3 hours ago, phantomfiddler said:

It sounds rather hypocritical for this info to be coming from Oxfam who I have been told consume 99% of donated funds in the course of management ????

"I have been told.." What you've been told is a lie, If in fact you have been told that and aren't just maliciously making it up. And considering how easy it would be to fact check such an allegation, it's likely you are just making it up.

[Scott]

3 hours ago, phantomfiddler said:

It sounds rather hypocritical for this info to be coming from Oxfam who I have been told consume 99% of donated funds in the course of management ????

Posting information that is false can get you a warning and suspension.   Please post a link from a reliable source.  

[Chomper Higgot]

It always amuses me to read comments from people, who in reality are near the bottom of the wealth curve and perhaps can’t afford heath insurance, or to get a decent education for their children and yet defend the hyper wealthy.

 

 

 

 

[Rc2702]

Oxfam is a tainted charity after the sexcapades scandals. They need to come clean about the extent of those problems that exist within their organisation. 

[Chomper Higgot]

I have for many years spent part of the year in up-state NY, Katonah, Cold Spring, White Plains; arguably one of the most affluent areas of America.

 

What I have noticed these past 4 or 5 years is driving only a few miles west of these places and the impact of falling incomes and increasing debt is very clearly visible. 

 

We’ve seen in agricultural and industrial towns how the working class have had their wealth and benefits hollowed out, this stripping of wealth is now becoming visible in small town middle class communities.

 

It hasn’t stopped there.

 

At a town social gathering in Katonah I spoke with parents paying down huge mortgages on properties that are not going up in value, their plan to  payoff school fees and fund retirement based on a house price equation that is no longer returning profits.

 

The growing ‘wealth gap’ is not between people who can afford to eat and people who can’t.

 

It’s between a tiny group of hyper wealthy who are stripping wealth from all of us.

 

If you are not one of the hyper wealthy you need to wake up.

 

We need a ‘New Deal’.

[wabothai]

11 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Of course it's wrong, but WHO is going to do anything about it? Certainly not the current collection in governments around the world. 

The president of the US is a billionaire- does anyone think he's going to declare war on the wealthy?

The poor of this world cannot afford lawyers.

[RickTik]

[dick dasterdly]

17 hours ago, natway09 said:

Interesting report by Oxfam the biggest robbers of all.

About 9% (if that) of donations get to where they should go,,,, the remainder

,,,,,,,, "admin costs" ?

 

15 hours ago, phantomfiddler said:

It sounds rather hypocritical for this info to be coming from Oxfam who I have been told consume 99% of donated funds in the course of management ????

99% sounds OTT to me, but 90% doesn't.

 

There was a HUGE scandal in the UK (a couple of decades back?) about the percentage of income spent by some charities on admin. (including way OTT salaries for those 'at the top' of the charity) - and, IIRC, the cost of admin. was around the 90% mark.

 

It was a long time ago, so I can't remember the charities named and shamed at the time - but I do remember Oxfam being criticised for holding on to huge sums, rather than actually spending it on the poor.  Consequently, I suspect (but don't know) that they were likely to be one of the charities spending ridiculous percentages on admin.

 

Having said this, those charities have hopefully reacted to the extensive media coverage at the time, and reduced the percentage of admin. costs. 

[Grouse]

11 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

I have for many years spent part of the year in up-state NY, Katonah, Cold Spring, White Plains; arguably one of the most affluent areas of America.

 

What I have noticed these past 4 or 5 years is driving only a few miles west of these places and the impact of falling incomes and increasing debt is very clearly visible. 

 

We’ve seen in agricultural and industrial towns how the working class have had their wealth and benefits hollowed out, this stripping of wealth is now becoming visible in small town middle class communities.

 

It hasn’t stopped there.

 

At a town social gathering in Katonah I spoke with parents paying down huge mortgages on properties that are not going up in value, their plan to  payoff school fees and fund retirement based on a house price equation that is no longer returning profits.

 

The growing ‘wealth gap’ is not between people who can afford to eat and people who can’t.

 

It’s between a tiny group of hyper wealthy who are stripping wealth from all of us.

 

If you are not one of the hyper wealthy you need to wake up.

 

We need a ‘New Deal’.

I do wish people would look at Gini coefficients and how they have changed over time. It should be a wake up call the Brexiters and Trumpsters but they don't understand.

 

https://data.oecd.org/inequality/income-inequality.htm

 

[dick dasterdly]

5 hours ago, RickTik said:

Change "and if you want to fix it you're a "socialist" to:

 

'and if you want to fix it you're a communist' - and I agree entirely.

 

Too many people confuse socialism with communism!

[bristolboy]

42 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

 

99% sounds OTT to me, but 90% doesn't.

 

There was a HUGE scandal in the UK (a couple of decades back?) about the percentage of income spent by some charities on admin. (including way OTT salaries for those 'at the top' of the charity) - and, IIRC, the cost of admin. was around the 90% mark.

 

It was a long time ago, so I can't remember the charities named and shamed at the time - but I do remember Oxfam being criticised for holding on to huge sums, rather than actually spending it on the poor.  Consequently, I suspect (but don't know) that they were likely to be one of the charities spending ridiculous percentages on admin.

 

Having said this, those charities have hopefully reacted to the extensive media coverage at the time, and reduced the percentage of admin. costs. 

I don't understand the preference for guessing about such things rather than looking them up.

[Chomper Higgot]

10 hours ago, Benroon said:

For Oxfam to complain about unequal taxation is taking the piss !

 

They enjoy charity status (in the UK at least) which allows them to barge into prime High Street locations at a fraction of the rent real people have to pay and preferential business rates. A scheme that was originally set up to allow LOCAL charities to get a look in, not corporate giants like Oxfam!

 

They clog up these towns selling second hand tat until eventually the streets are full of them and towns then disintegrate. 

 

 

Charity shops are now to be blamed for forcing out other businesses and bringing about the disintegration of towns.

 

That’s new!

 

[edit]

 

It’s not new, it’s the same twisted logic that we all laughed at in the ‘Monty Python Witch Burning sketch’.

 

 

[Chomper Higgot]

56 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

 

99% sounds OTT to me, but 90% doesn't.

 

There was a HUGE scandal in the UK (a couple of decades back?) about the percentage of income spent by some charities on admin. (including way OTT salaries for those 'at the top' of the charity) - and, IIRC, the cost of admin. was around the 90% mark.

 

It was a long time ago, so I can't remember the charities named and shamed at the time - but I do remember Oxfam being criticised for holding on to huge sums, rather than actually spending it on the poor.  Consequently, I suspect (but don't know) that they were likely to be one of the charities spending ridiculous percentages on admin.

 

Having said this, those charities have hopefully reacted to the extensive media coverage at the time, and reduced the percentage of admin. costs. 

Oxfam are pointing a critical finger at the hyper-wealthy.

 

You can expect the right wing press to respond with an ‘Oxfam Scandle’.

 

 

[Baerboxer]

23 hours ago, ThreeEyedRaven said:

Greed, going by the name capitalism makes the world go round, but will probably end up being its undoing too. The wealthy are seriously outnumbered and the day is bound to come when the majority have had enough. There is no excuse in this day and age for people to be living below the poverty line, especially in so called developed countries.

 

Theoretically your're right. But the reality is it's all about the money. And the rich elite, political families etc will always have military might, at their disposal. 

 

The rich are getting richer and they are getting more powerful. Despite the availability of information, despite the threats of climate change and political turbulence. 

 

The phenomenon of a rich family becoming mega rich, powerful, manipulative and able to influence world events, started by the likes of the Rothschilds, has become even more influential.

 

Communism and Socialism have failed because of greed and corruption. Capitalism works but benefits the few not the masses. Greed, exploitation and ruthless pursuits of wealth - used to be the old colonial imperialists; now the big business corporations.

[Baerboxer]

9 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Oxfam are pointing a critical finger at the hyper-wealthy.

 

You can expect the right wing press to respond with an ‘Oxfam Scandle’.

 

 

 

Are you disputing that Oxfam and some other charities have had issues with the amount of donated money eaten up by costs and expenses v the amount actually used for charitable purposes?

[dick dasterdly]

1 hour ago, dick dasterdly said:

 

99% sounds OTT to me, but 90% doesn't.

 

There was a HUGE scandal in the UK (a couple of decades back?) about the percentage of income spent by some charities on admin. (including way OTT salaries for those 'at the top' of the charity) - and, IIRC, the cost of admin. was around the 90% mark.

 

It was a long time ago, so I can't remember the charities named and shamed at the time - but I do remember Oxfam being criticised for holding on to huge sums, rather than actually spending it on the poor.  Consequently, I suspect (but don't know) that they were likely to be one of the charities spending ridiculous percentages on admin.

 

Having said this, those charities have hopefully reacted to the extensive media coverage at the time, and reduced the percentage of admin. costs. 

 

56 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

I don't understand the preference for guessing about such things rather than looking them up.

Please forgive me for not having the stamina to look up numerous media (newspaper) reports from decades ago.  Particularly as I don't care v. much anymore, apart from realising from those reports that it was not a good idea to donate money to most wealthy charities.

 

But hopefully you'll have the determination to prove me wrong, and research the subject.

 

If things have changed, I would be genuinely more than happy to hear it, as I used to pay part of my income to a charity (via the arrangements in place in UK companies).

 

i.e. I'm more than happy to contribute towards genuine charities that don't spend most of their money on admin costs.

[bristolboy]

11 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

 

Please forgive me for not having the stamina to look up numerous media (newspaper) reports from decades ago.  Particularly as I don't care v. much anymore, apart from realising from those reports that it was not a good idea to donate money to most wealthy charities.

 

But hopefully you'll have the determination to prove me wrong, and research the subject.

 

If things have changed, I would be genuinely more than happy to hear it, as I used to pay part of my income to a charity (via the arrangements in place in UK companies).

 

i.e. I'm more than happy to contribute towards genuine charities that don't spend most of their money on admin costs.

I typed this into google search "oxfam percentage of budget spent on administrative costs"

And came up with this for Oxfam UK

Oxfam spends 25% of its funds on wages and running costs: Charity spent £103m last year including £700,000 on pay and benefits for seven top staff

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3193050/Oxfam-spends-25-funds-wages-running-costs-Charity-spent-103m-year-including-700-000-bonuses-senior-staff.html

And here's a link for Oxfam American which spends 77 percent on programs:

https://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=4288

It took mea lot  longer to type this post than it did to find answers

[Grouse]

2 hours ago, Grouse said:

I do wish people would look at Gini coefficients and how they have changed over time. It should be a wake up call the Brexiters and Trumpsters but they don't understand.

 

https://data.oecd.org/inequality/income-inequality.htm

 

McAmble thinks my post on Gini coefficients is sad! It is in fact the key issue. Perhaps he could elaborate?

 

Redistributive taxation is certainly the route to happier societies

[Chomper Higgot]

1 hour ago, Baerboxer said:

 

Are you disputing that Oxfam and some other charities have had issues with the amount of donated money eaten up by costs and expenses v the amount actually used for charitable purposes?

That was not the point of my comment.

 

But I certainly dispute any figures that are not backed up by a reliable source.

 

Meanwhile, ponder this:

 

Oxfam highlights the problem of wealth distribution and the impact that is having on societies.

 

You willingly come to the aid of the hyper-wealthy by attacking the news bringer.

 

The rich don’t need military might at their disposal, they have willing cap-doffers watching their back for free.

[dick dasterdly]

19 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

I typed this into google search "oxfam percentage of budget spent on administrative costs"

And came up with this for Oxfam UK

Oxfam spends 25% of its funds on wages and running costs: Charity spent £103m last year including £700,000 on pay and benefits for seven top staff

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3193050/Oxfam-spends-25-funds-wages-running-costs-Charity-spent-103m-year-including-700-000-bonuses-senior-staff.html

And here's a link for Oxfam American which spends 77 percent on programs:

https://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=4288

It took mea lot  longer to type this post than it did to find answers

Thank you for that.

 

As a result I googled Oxfam Report and Accounts - but it came up with "No page information in search results"....

 

But to be fair, presumably charities don't have to publish their Reports and Accounts?

[Chomper Higgot]

3 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

Thank you for that.

 

As a result I googled Oxfam Report and Accounts - but it came up with "No page information in search results"....

 

But to be fair, presumably charities don't have to publish their Reports and Accounts?

To be fair you should presume less:

 

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/434789/cc15b_Lowink.pdf

[ballpoint]

1 hour ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Charity shops are now to be blamed for forcing out other businesses and bringing about the disintegration of towns.

 

That’s new!

 

[edit]

 

It’s not new, it’s the same twisted logic that we all laughed at in the ‘Monty Python Witch Burning sketch’.

 

 

I think Douglas Adams' "Shoe Event Horizon" is more fitting:

 

"...until the whole economy of the place passed what I believe is termed the Shoe Event Horizon, and it became no longer economically possible to build anything other than shoe shops. Result – collapse, ruin and famine."

 

https://polyarchive.com/2012/12/31/shoe-event-horizon/

 

[NCC1701A]

nonsense. i have just the same amount of money as I always had.  Is the sushi being served at the proper temperature?

[attrayant]

3 hours ago, dick dasterdly said:

It was a long time ago, so I can't remember the charities named and shamed at the time - but I do remember Oxfam being criticised for holding on to huge sums, rather than actually spending it on the poor.  Consequently, I suspect (but don't know) that they were likely to be one of the charities spending ridiculous percentages on admin.

 

And therefore, there isn't a global wealth gap?

 

What I mean is, how does criticizing Oxfam for their internal policies contribute to the discussion about a global wealth gap?  I'm missing the connection.

[dick dasterdly]

58 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

Thank you for that.

 

As a result I googled Oxfam Report and Accounts - but it came up with "No page information in search results"....

 

But to be fair, presumably charities don't have to publish their Reports and Accounts?

 

54 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

To be fair you should presume less:

 

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/434789/cc15b_Lowink.pdf

Fair enough.

 

So why does trying to google Oxfam Report and Accounts result in ""No page information in search results"?

[dick dasterdly]

18 minutes ago, attrayant said:

 

And therefore, there isn't a global wealth gap?

 

What I mean is, how does criticizing Oxfam for their internal policies contribute to the discussion about a global wealth gap?  I'm missing the connection.

Hence my post a couple of pages back -

 

22 hours ago, dick dasterdly said:

I don't have much time for Oxfam, but they are right (as far as I can see) in pointing out that the gap between the richest and poorest is growing.

 

[Roadman]

That headline I have a real problem with. The Gap between the rich and poor is growing as it always has and always will so that is correct. The fueling global anger according to Oxfam I have a real problem with. And citing some heavy industrial city or state in the back sticks of the US struggling because of its inability to adapt to modern technology or move on is not indicative of the topic. 

The reality of the world overall is we are all getting richer. It may not seem it to the most of us and especially if you were born into a poor family in a war torn African state, but go into the back sticks of Asia or Africa and extreme famine and poverty are something that we grew up with in the 60s and 70s no longer exist apart from where idiotic dictators still run free. I can remember in the 70s as we as a dirt poor Kiwi family chewed on (and just about spewed it up) our fatty hunk of old mutton stew my old man threatening us not knowing how lucky we were compared to the starving kids in Biafra. The world was full of poverty and famine, there were wars left right and centre, the doom and gloom idiots were predicting that the world was going to starve due to populations growing beyond our resources, and we died like flies at an early age from whatever that a doctor could not even explain to us. The likes of the Oxfams of this world played on that jargon to reap money from people for supplies into Africa for example that ended up in the hands of the dictators to trade for more arms. What has changed the world whether some of you like it or not and Africa as a whole is a good example has not been Oxfam (to be fair needed for short term solutions) but pressure from within and outside individual countries for change to democratic systems and free trade that comes with that stabilization and a move to democracy and that nasty word that you hand out socialist nanny state government lovers detest...capitalism. This world has improved out of sight in the last fifty years certainly for the time since as a teenager I became more aware of the world as a whole. And those improvements are vast right across the board in age growth expectancy, survival at birth, income improvement, efficiencies in crop and food production, control of diseases, rights of women, races and different sexes etc. ..you can go on and on. 

So yes if you just want to focus on the idiotic statement from Oxfam that the gap has widened then duh...of course it has. But if you actually asked instead are the starving and persecuted sections of the world society as a whole back in the 70's improved their lot to today...you bet you they have. And if you want to go to UNESCO, WHO and other like minded world welfare organisations and research the topic then you will see heaps of graphs that show that and especially for the dirt poor continents specifically like Africa and Asia where wealth improvement has been phenomenal. 

About the only thing I can agree with the general thinking of the topic is that while capitalism has been the main driver of that social welfare growth, the tax dodging of the wealthy right across the world does need reigned in. But apart from that if you want to make heaps of money then go for it and good luck to you. 

[bristolboy]

2 hours ago, dick dasterdly said:

Thank you for that.

 

As a result I googled Oxfam Report and Accounts - but it came up with "No page information in search results"....

 

But to be fair, presumably charities don't have to publish their Reports and Accounts?

I don't know what search engine you're using, but here's the #1 item I got when I googled "Oxfam Report and Accounts:

https://www.oxfam.org.uk/what-we-do/about-us/plans-reports-and-policies/annual-report-and-accounts-2018?cid=rdt_oldannualreview