I looked a while ago at the wages, and you're right, £100K is not unusual, in fact some considerably more. Cancer Research £140K. I see the Salvation Army is £10K
http://society.guardian.co.uk/salary...042677,00.html

Spain is full of non-for-profit associations where nobody gets paid. This is because so few services are provided by the government in Spain, so neighbours and friends have to get together to provide those services

e.g. there are associations that provide food banks to the poor, or feed children who's parents cannot afford to, or teach African immigrants to read, or provide physiotherapy to children with cystic fibrosis, or workshops for children with severe autism etc etc

It is really incredible. By the way, the above system of groups of people working together without pay for the coomon good is part of a system called anarchy - of which Spain has a proud tradition

I also agree that charity workers should not be paid, not in any way - and certainly not commission for every person they sign up!

I believe that a lot of UK charities, like Children in Need, use none of the donated money for expenses, but use the income from the interest on the money to pay all expenses. Not sure about charities like Oxfam etc who were complained about in the past as they were paying people to approach people in the street to sign up for a direct debit monthly payment, apparently the first couple of payments went to the organisation that were supplying the people approaching you.

Chuggers! A combination of charity and muggers!
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...s-8063470.html

I seriously question the entire premise (Me thinks it's just another piece of propaganda to support the notion that wealth is only held by the wicked, and leveraging your natural instincts of jealousy to divert from rational assessment).

First, poverty is not a condition created solely as consequence of how much money those in poverty have or do not have at any one moment.

Poverty is a temporal condition that exists as a result of any number of factors which create barriers to prosperity, not the least of which are education, available natural resources, local politics, corruption, and many other factors out of the control of those impoverished (not simply money).

To suggest that 25% of the wealth possessed by the world's most wealthy at this moment could solve world poverty forever - is like saying that 25% of my savings would be sufficient to support a family and all their subsequent heirs with food, housing, education ... forever... which is a bit like comparing an apple to the theory of relativity.

I reckon 25% of the world's wealth would be a nice Christmas gift to millions of impoverished, but it won't change the local political ideology, natural resources, the weather, or anything else contributing to their impoverished condition, and therefore no matter how much money you throw at it, it will never completely and permanently solve the problem.

Of course, if we ever decide to give 25% of the world's wealth to the impoverished as an ongoing "forever" policy, then please let me know. I and a few billion others will be the first in line to become officially "impoverished".

Good post Ami

So why did they bomb the World Trade Center then? And now the gas plant in the Sahara, which is owned by western companies? Don't tell me it's got anything to with religion. If that was the case they would blow up cathedrals.

Everyone but you knows that it is a war against any country which is not a islamist state

oh hell - I'm going to agree with you, again

just look at the cv's of those at the top of many charities, they are life long charity top management, voting for their friends and relatives to live the life of luxury and recognition.

as there used to be a time when the "gold plated" pension for civil servants and local government officers was in recognition of their low salaries and poor working conditions, the same used to apply to those working in charities.
Yes there are many at the bottom end who probably have to pay for their own coffee and have no salary at all. There used to be a time when out of a job working for a charity was seen as a way forward later.
But the ones at the top of the pile are amassing salary and pensions like they are going out of business, such jobs are now listed as Top Jobs in the major employment adverts, with salaries more than the PM.

And they get themselves on shows like Question Time and pontificate before going home the the hubbie and 2.5 children in leafy Surrey.

then why do they bomb inside Islamist states ?
or are you suggesting that is just a "trial run" ??

funny that those who tell others to go out and kill themselves taking as many "unbelievers" with them are never around to do it themselves or be caught in the act.

and as to those who sit there on the television wringing their hands and saying this is bad for Islam because it is a "peaceful" religion.
they have it in their power to do something about it - but never do, so are just as bad.

`

Just have a look at the Oxfam accounts to see the pension deficit that exists. That needs to be paid for from income.

I'm not disagreeing, all I am suggesting is that it isnt necessarily those at the bottom of the pecking order.
Current legislation means that companies have to provide a pension plan for staff, which is a further cost on staff employment that in the case of charities cannot be recovered by increasing prices.
But the pensions at the top should be looked at as they are not always included in the general company pension scheme, as they are individual to the employee as part of their salary package.

`

Well they certainly didn't blow up the WTC because they are poor - they're not. I think you are making the mistake of thinking that religious people think rationally - they don't.

the "soldiers", no matter what religion, who are the usually the ones who are poor, its the leaders who have access to the money, the income no matter what the source.

`

Well, no-one seems to be able to come up with a good reason why the building most symbolic of western wealth and capital, i.e. the World Trade Center, was the prime al Qaeda target.

It's pretty obvious to me - look at the list of tenants. Morgan Stanley, Lehmann Bros, Marsh & McLennan, the Bank of America, AIG, etc etc. (all those "too big to fail" names who seven years later brought about the a global financial crisis). I bet lots of those 100 billionaires work(ed) for those companies at some point.

Looks pretty rational to me. I'm not saying it was justified, of course, but I don't think it was motivated by religion. Like most wars, religion is just a façade used to cover up a deeper hatred. It was an attack on wealth, just like the Russian and French revolutions were.