[QUOTE=stpauler]
Yeah, it’s a damn shame that there isn’t more hate around. Ass.
[/QUOTE]
BSA isn’t about hate. I don’t agree with their overprotective and outdated morals, but it’s not based in hate.
[QUOTE=What Exit?]
Even if the person did deserve the money, not from a non-profit. I would rather not support a non-profit large enough to have to run like a large corporation.
[/QUOTE]
Larger has economies of scale, and I don’t mind paying a fair wage to get good management. But there’s a huge gap between a fair wage and modern over-priced CEOs.
[QUOTE=DrDeth]
No way anyone deserves 1.5 million for 4 years work.
[/QUOTE]
Well, if that’s the going rate for someone who can run an organization the size of UW, then you’re wrong. When the board is looking to hire a CEO, do you think they say, “let’s consider all the qualified candidates, and then figure out which ones are willing to work for a lot less than they could get elsewhere.”? Because that’s a sure way to end up looking in the wrong end of the candidate pool.
[QUOTE=DrDeth]
BSA isn’t about hate. I don’t agree with their overprotective and outdated morals, but it’s not based in hate.
[/QUOTE]
Based? No. Proponent of bigotry? Hell yes.
[QUOTE=DrDeth]
Actually, one of the reason I don’t support the UW is that too many branches don’t support BSA.
galt- I certainly expect the CEO of UW to make a decently high wage and get good benefits. But “a $1.5-million pension payment to its former chief executive, Betty Stanley Beene, when she departed after four years in the job” is just far too fucking much. No way anyone deserves 1.5 million for 4 years work.
[/QUOTE]
Not that I’m defending golden parachutes, but that’s chump change for a golden parachute for a CEO of a similarly sized corporation. And it is chump change for UW. That wouldn’t even be a bronze parachute…maybe tin.
You’re calling Social Security “welfare”? It’s actually more of a social insurance policy, where participants make contributions and a subset of them live long enough to receive benefits. (A smaller group of spouses and dependents of contributors receive benefits without having made any contributions themselves, but most of the people who get SS/Medicare benefits off your payroll-tax dollar have paid for other people’s SS/Medicare benefits in their turn.)
If that’s “welfare”, then ISTM your health insurance premiums would count as “welfare” too.
Means-tested entitlement programs, on the other hand—i.e., various government services specifically for poor and/or helpless people, which is what I think is generally meant by “welfare”—are a much smaller chunk of the federal budget. I don’t know which state you’re in (I always forget to look at “Location” fields before I start writing a reply), so I don’t know how much of your state tax revenues go to welfare programs.
(Oddly enough, many Western European nations which have significantly higher tax levels than the US and which spend much more on social services also seem to have higher per-capita levels of private charitable giving than the US, from the figures I’ve been able to find (e.g., for international aid. We Americans are perhaps a bit spoiled when it comes to estimating what a “huge percentage” we give to help other people.)
Back to the OT, though, I agree that giving through the UW is definitely not the most efficient form of charity.
[QUOTE=Crafter_Man]
A huge percentage of my federal and state taxes already goes to welfare (social services, social security, etc.). The last thing I’m going to do *increase * the amount I’m paying. Which is what I’d be doing if I gave money to a charity…
[/QUOTE]
*
"Are there no prisons? Are there no workhouses? "* :rolleyes:
[QUOTE=Kimstu]
You’re calling Social Security “welfare”? It’s actually more of a social insurance policy, where participants make contributions and a subset of them live long enough to receive benefits. (A smaller group of spouses and dependents of contributors receive benefits without having made any contributions themselves, but most of the people who get SS/Medicare benefits off your payroll-tax dollar have paid for other people’s SS/Medicare benefits in their turn.)
If that’s “welfare”, then ISTM your health insurance premiums would count as “welfare” too.
[/quote]
Except that I can choose what type of health insurance that I want or, in fact, not to have it at all.
So? How does that affect whether or not it counts as “welfare”? My point is not that Social Security contributions are voluntary contributions—they’re not, as you note—but that they are structured more like an insurance program than like a welfare program or a charity.
If mandatory participation is enough to classify contributions as “welfare”, then mandatory auto insurance premiums would be welfare, union dues would be welfare, and so on and so forth. That interpretation dilutes the term “welfare” so much as to make it pretty much meaningless, IMO. I think it makes more sense to reserve the word “welfare” specifically for the various means-tested entitlement programs.
[QUOTE=Kimstu]
So? How does that affect whether or not it counts as “welfare”? My point is not that Social Security contributions are voluntary contributions—they’re not, as you note—but that they are structured more like an insurance program than like a welfare program or a charity.
If mandatory participation is enough to classify contributions as “welfare”, then mandatory auto insurance premiums would be welfare, union dues would be welfare, and so on and so forth. That interpretation dilutes the term “welfare” so much as to make it pretty much meaningless, IMO. I think it makes more sense to reserve the word “welfare” specifically for the various means-tested entitlement programs.
[/QUOTE]
Maybe I’m going a bit afield, but IMO ‘welfare’ has to include all those huge corporate grants, tax breaks, and sweetheart deals showered on big business by all levels of government. This is by FAR the largest share of welfare, if we conjoined our definitions of welfare and that was agreed to by all. Of course it won’t be 
Ah, the United Way drive! Is it that time again already? We are a very large company and we are the largest donor every year in our industry. However. We have online registration for UW through a 3rd party. One of the options is to decline to donate, but you still get credit for participating in the drive. Once you have “particpated” you are eligible for prizes and there are always lots of prizes, culminating in very expensive grand prizes, valued at several thousand dollars. I always toss something in early and I win every year. Last year, for a $5 annual donation, I won a $100 AmEx gift card. I started doing that a couple of years ago after bitching to one of the executives about the incessant hounding and that’s what he suggested doing. That way, you get on the donor list, they don’t hassle you about donating for the rest of the drive, and you look like a team player for donating, but your company never knows how much, or if, you donated at all. Win-win all the way around. Also, my company pays the UW “administrative fees”, so our donations are grossed up. If you have to have a UW drive, that’s the way to go, IMO. Oh, and any live events are completely optional and are only attended by people who grab the free food and run.
Supervisors knowing whether or not and how much their subordinates donated? That’s the worst sort of blackmail and a revolting business practice and deserves a hearty “fuck you.” Those of you who have to endure that have my sympathies.
What pisses me off is the UW has some sort of strong hold at my company.
Every year all of the upper management folks will stand at the door as you’re trying to leave work and try to intimidate people on donating. If you already donate; they’ll ask you to donate MORE.
It was really deplorable watching these, upper management, fucks walk the lower working class stiffs over to make shift computer kiosk and stand there over their shoulder as they bullied them into signing up for automatic payroll deduction.
That really is deplorable, SHAKES. Forcing people to donate to a “charity” - yeah, that’s a good idea. I’ve gotten better over the years at smiling and just keeping my opinions to myself at work, but I think those kind of tactics would bring out my inner stubborn bitch.
[QUOTE=Otto]
The only good thing about being a temp, I’m off the United Way radar.
[/QUOTE]
You didn’t set off their Waydar?
[QUOTE=What Exit?]
Most Police organization that call are the same way, 10% goes to the cops and the rest god knows where. I give to my local police and 97% goes to their charity that way. The police ones in NJ have actually gotten obnoxious on the phones, they sounded like Goombas or at least extras from the Sopranos.
[/QUOTE]
I give to the police too but only through non-tax-deductible speeding tickets. 
[QUOTE=zamboniracer]
I give to the police too but only through non-tax-deductible speeding tickets.
[/QUOTE]
I used to do that but then it turned out the damn auto insurers would demand a larger donation then I gave the Police. Darn leeches, I had to find a different way of supporting the police. 
Jim
[QUOTE=Kimstu]
You’re calling Social Security “welfare”?
[/QUOTE]
Yes, social security is a form of welfare for many recipients. Most beneficiaries withdraw in a short time what they contributed to the system. It is not uncommon for a recipient to receive 30 times more than they paid in.
[QUOTE=Crafter_Man]
Yes, social security is a form of welfare for many recipients. Most beneficiaries withdraw in a short time what they contributed to the system. It is not uncommon for a recipient to receive 30 times more than they paid in.
[/QUOTE]
Wouldn’t that be known as an investment?
I expect to draw at least 20 times the value of what I put into to 401k. I expect to draw a smaller multiple on my Social Security. The Benefits are going down, but even at their best 30 times is not totally unrealistic. Additionally, if you do not work long enough to put enough into Social Security, you do not generally receive full benefits from what I always understood.
To me it is a Federally mandated retirement plan, not welfare.
For the record I am not planning on SS to provide more than a small help when I retire. I have grown up knowing that is I do not save for retirement, I will have a very poor retirement.
Jim
[QUOTE=Crafter_Man]
Yes, social security is a form of welfare for many recipients. Most beneficiaries withdraw in a short time what they contributed to the system. It is not uncommon for a recipient to receive 30 times more than they paid in.
[/QUOTE]
cite?
[QUOTE=What Exit?]
Wouldn’t that be known as an investment?
[/QUOTE]
Yes, under conventional circumstances. But Social security is not an investment vehicle.