Charity Cheat

[God is an Englishman]

^

Those carrying tins that I place coins in usually make it clear which charity it is (visually) or is such a task beyond you?

It's for the GIAE Foundation, I told you that.

[Bomber]

^

Those carrying tins that I place coins in usually make it clear which charity it is (visually) or is such a task beyond you?

It's for the GIAE Foundation, I told you that.

Tell me about your foundation and who from the "luckless" benefits - kids with cancer, the blind, poor people in the east, what?

[God is an Englishman]

^

Those carrying tins that I place coins in usually make it clear which charity it is (visually) or is such a task beyond you?

It's for the GIAE Foundation, I told you that.

Tell me about your foundation and who from the "luckless" benefits - kids with cancer, the blind, poor people in the east, what?

I could give you the easy answer of - The same charities that the Shane Warne Foundation gave money to

OR

I could say, pick a charity and I will ensure your $3.20 goes there.

[Bomber]

I may as well give donations to anyone who looks needy then. At least when the blind collect money, I see signs, badges, tins clearly stating for the blind, so I will give to the blind. If 16% goes to the blind and 84% to the bloke collecting, I'm fine with that.
So you'll have to do better

[God is an Englishman]

I may as well give donations to anyone who looks needy then. At least when the blind collect money, I see signs, badges, tins clearly stating for the blind, so I will give to the blind. If 16% goes to the blind and 84% to the bloke collecting, I'm fine with that.
So you'll have to do better

There you have it - that's the Shane Warne Foundation Model and you have turned it down.

[predator]

Talking of dodgy charities

http://tinyurl.com/zotnsl6

[Bomber]

I may as well give donations to anyone who looks needy then. At least when the blind collect money, I see signs, badges, tins clearly stating for the blind, so I will give to the blind. If 16% goes to the blind and 84% to the bloke collecting, I'm fine with that.
So you'll have to do better

There you have it - that's the Shane Warne Foundation Model and you have turned it down.

Still don't see the link. Perhaps you'd like to give me a list of those who are pissed off that they didn't get satisfaction of their donations to his foundation. They'd only publicise their stupidity at best anyway.

Btw, did Warney (or any celebrity highlighting a charitable cause) categorically state that 100% of proceeds would go direct there?

[God is an Englishman]

I may as well give donations to anyone who looks needy then. At least when the blind collect money, I see signs, badges, tins clearly stating for the blind, so I will give to the blind. If 16% goes to the blind and 84% to the bloke collecting, I'm fine with that.
So you'll have to do better

There you have it - that's the Shane Warne Foundation Model and you have turned it down.

Still don't see the link. Perhaps you'd like to give me a list of those who are pissed off that they didn't get satisfaction of their donations to his foundation. They'd only publicise their stupidity at best anyway.

Btw, did Warney (or any celebrity highlighting a charitable cause) categorically state that 100% of proceeds would go direct there?

Pick a charity, but me lunch and I'll donate $3.20 to it then. That's basically what the Warne foundation has done and you seem to think that's fine.

[Bomber]

Hey, even you said a great job if you can get it, but its not ok for someone else to "get away with it"?

Talk to your local MP and see about getting the law changed.

Question in previous post unanswered btw.

[God is an Englishman]

theres lots of things that are good work if you can get it, doesn't mean it's right.

Unanswered question - no Warne hasn't said that every cent is going to the charity. There is an expectation obviously that more than 16% will though.

[GaylyColouredStumps]

The sad thing is that people volunteer their time collecting for charities, only for a majority of that money going to pay the wages of the people running the charities.

Would you give up your time to collect money on behalf of, say Commonwealth Bank, if you knew that the first $800 of the grand you collected was going into the bank managers pocket? He promises he'll give $200 to a worthy cause though. promise.

[Stitch This]

The sad thing is that people volunteer their time collecting for charities, only for a majority of that money going to pay the wages of the people running the charities.

Would you give up your time to collect money on behalf of, say Commonwealth Bank, if you knew that the first $800 of the grand you collected was going into the bank managers pocket? He promises he'll give $200 to a worthy cause though. promise.

Gross oversimplification of the issue.

[GaylyColouredStumps]

The sad thing is that people volunteer their time collecting for charities, only for a majority of that money going to pay the wages of the people running the charities.

Would you give up your time to collect money on behalf of, say Commonwealth Bank, if you knew that the first $800 of the grand you collected was going into the bank managers pocket? He promises he'll give $200 to a worthy cause though. promise.

Gross oversimplification of the issue.

Not really.

Bomber said he didnt care, it was 16c going to a cause that wouldnt have otherwise gone there.

This situation has 20c going to a cause.

[Bomber]

The sad thing is that people volunteer their time collecting for charities, only for a majority of that money going to pay the wages of the people running the charities.

Would you give up your time to collect money on behalf of, say Commonwealth Bank, if you knew that the first $800 of the grand you collected was going into the bank managers pocket? He promises he'll give $200 to a worthy cause though. promise.

Gross oversimplification of the issue.

Not really.

Bomber said he didnt care, it was 16c going to a cause that wouldnt have otherwise gone there.

This situation has 20c going to a cause.

Basic principle - Bloke no 1 goes out collects $1,000, $160 goes to the charity, the rest to claim legally the expenses. Bloke no 2 sits back and does nothing - charity gets nothing.

Which bloke has done more for the charity, 1 or 2?

[Scholes]

If warne was claiming those expenses legally, he would have been only too happy to open the books for an audit. As it was, he chose to close the foundation down. He's a cheat, plain & simple, as he has been all his miserable life. As to which of 1 or 2 is better for a charity, neither are, as when people realize how little ends up going to the charity, they will feel less & less inclined to donate.

[GaylyColouredStumps]

Gross oversimplification of the issue.

Not really.

Bomber said he didnt care, it was 16c going to a cause that wouldnt have otherwise gone there.

This situation has 20c going to a cause.

Basic principle - Bloke no 1 goes out collects $1,000, $160 goes to the charity, the rest to claim legally the expenses. Bloke no 2 sits back and does nothing - charity gets nothing.

Which bloke has done more for the charity, 1 or 2?

Fuck that.

What an inefficient way to collect money. The primary beneficiary being the charity people themselves.

At least bloke two isn't enabling these scammers

[Bomber]

In other words, person no 1.

Lesson - don't donate to "causes" if something smells fishy or if you have doubts you're contribution will not sufficiently reach its desired destination.

[N5 1BH]

If only 20c in the dollar goes to the actual need, the donation being tax deductible you claim back that 20c in $ at tax time and you give nothing in reality. The government then allocates our money to these businesses / charities (run by $400 grand a year execs. funded by you) to franchise out the duties that we specifically elected them to do for us in the first place. To facilitate the increasing wealth gap the horrible myth that there is not enough to go around becomes more ingrained in our consciousness as we increasingly hold our hands out to the benevolence of these charities for what is or was our money to begin with. If Murdoch and Google alone paid their taxes would we even need a children’s charity?

[God is an Englishman]

If only 20c in the dollar goes to the actual need, the donation being tax deductible you claim back that 20c in $ at tax time and you give nothing in reality. The government then allocates our money to these businesses / charities (run by $400 grand a year execs. funded by you) to franchise out the duties that we specifically elected them to do for us in the first place. To facilitate the increasing wealth gap the horrible myth that there is not enough to go around becomes more ingrained in our consciousness as we increasingly hold our hands out to the benevolence of these charities for what is or was our money to begin with. If Murdoch and Google alone paid their taxes would we even need a children’s charity?

Murdoch is an american citizen who lives in america - why would he pay tax in australia?

[GaylyColouredStumps]

If only 20c in the dollar goes to the actual need, the donation being tax deductible you claim back that 20c in $ at tax time and you give nothing in reality. The government then allocates our money to these businesses / charities (run by $400 grand a year execs. funded by you) to franchise out the duties that we specifically elected them to do for us in the first place. To facilitate the increasing wealth gap the horrible myth that there is not enough to go around becomes more ingrained in our consciousness as we increasingly hold our hands out to the benevolence of these charities for what is or was our money to begin with. If Murdoch and Google alone paid their taxes would we even need a children’s charity?

You might be an ok bloke after all

[N5 1BH]

If only 20c in the dollar goes to the actual need, the donation being tax deductible you claim back that 20c in $ at tax time and you give nothing in reality. The government then allocates our money to these businesses / charities (run by $400 grand a year execs. funded by you) to franchise out the duties that we specifically elected them to do for us in the first place. To facilitate the increasing wealth gap the horrible myth that there is not enough to go around becomes more ingrained in our consciousness as we increasingly hold our hands out to the benevolence of these charities for what is or was our money to begin with. If Murdoch and Google alone paid their taxes would we even need a children’s charity?

You might be an ok bloke after all

Nah I'm still a cunt

[PDog]

If warne was claiming those expenses legally, he would have been only too happy to open the books for an audit. As it was, he chose to close the foundation down. He's a cheat, plain & simple, as he has been all his miserable life. As to which of 1 or 2 is better for a charity, neither are, as when people realize how little ends up going to the charity, they will feel less & less inclined to donate.

he is still being audited, regardless.

[Bomber]

If only 20c in the dollar goes to the actual need, the donation being tax deductible you claim back that 20c in $ at tax time and you give nothing in reality. The government then allocates our money to these businesses / charities (run by $400 grand a year execs. funded by you) to franchise out the duties that we specifically elected them to do for us in the first place. To facilitate the increasing wealth gap the horrible myth that there is not enough to go around becomes more ingrained in our consciousness as we increasingly hold our hands out to the benevolence of these charities for what is or was our money to begin with. If Murdoch and Google alone paid their taxes would we even need a children’s charity?

You might be an ok bloke after all

Nah I'm still a champagne

Agreed.

[Stitch This]

I just love these guys....

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-02-26/p ... ia/7199358

Brett Lee..."I know nothing"

[Stitch This]

Warnie's PR people working overtime to restore his 'hero's status

http://www.foxsports.com.au/cricket/aus ... 203c94983c

I wonder if it's the same company that handles the Foundations PR and if so how they divvy up the invoices?

[Stitch This]

Shane Warne and Didier Drogba seen swapping notes over coffee in London recently.

[GaylyColouredStumps]

Oxfam doing a stellar job taking care of the vulnerable.

Keep donating those $, get that feel good glow when you virtue signal at the work water cooler.

[nachoman]

ironic thread this one..
no ball tampering though in this thread