R.N. L.I.Small increase

[ditchcrawler]

RNLI have notified a small increase in subs.For the Offshore member I make it 12.5%.I think they do great work but 12 .5% is a bit much .Or am I getting sensitive.It's the same sort of small increase we had in our Council Tax.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[oldharry]

Its a sub to a charity for goodness sake!

Try refusing to pay your Council tax - you will soon find the difference between 'please' and 'must'

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[jamesjermain]

I hadn't heard of this but I an not all that surprised, shocked or outraged. I think the reasons may be:

1) Subs haven't risen much in recent years.
2) The RNLI may be trying to broaden its financial base by increasing the proportion of its revenue from members and relying less on legacies and big donations.

<hr width=100% size=1>JJ

 

[JamesS]

At least the RNLI are accountable for what they spend and we are given the choice of whether we pay or not.

Compare this with the affrontary of the RYA who have increased their charges this year by 20% to £30 - for what?

Compare their annual reports ot see where the money goes. You will see, if you are a member of the RYA, that you are supporting a very generous non contiutory final salary scheme for the higher echalons of management and a fairly generous money puchase scheme for the other ranks.

For my money, I still regard the RNLI as a worthwhile spend but I've cancelled my sub to the RYA.

Cheers

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[vyv_cox]

On the other hand, for your 30 pounds the RYA will give you a free, comprehensive Internet Service Provider service. Seems like a good deal to me.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[pvb]

\"Compare their annual reports\"...

I suspect you haven't looked at the last RNLI annual report, which revealed that they don't mess about with money-purchase pension schemes. In fact, all their 1080 employees are members of the RNLI non-contributory final salary pension scheme (fund value over £115 million at last valuation). Unfortunately, the pension fund has suffered due to stock market losses and so the RNLI will now have to contribute around 23% of pensionable payroll into the fund - an increase of about 50% in contributions. Maybe that's why your subscriptions have risen.

The RNLI has been criticised in recent years for its high level of reserves - around £450 million at the last count. They also spend a huge amount on fundraising (in 2002, they spent £24.6 million pounds on fundraising - around £1 for every £4 raised).


<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[steve_cronin]

There was a lot of internal debate on this one.

Subs havn't gone up in five years at least. It just isn't economical to run the newsletters and magazines on the current income and since that is what members want (otherwise they can just be donors) it has to be paid for.

Steve Cronin

<hr width=100% size=1>The above is, like any other post here, only a personal opinion

 

[steve_cronin]

Re: £1 to raise £4

You want good quality employees you have to pay good quality remuneration - fact of corporate life.

As to generating 300% profit on fundraising expenditure, please supply better alternative. Most commercial entities would be happy to make a 30% profit on expenditure.

Most fundraising branches and guilds are looking for volunteers with good ideas. If you can do better please contact West Quay Road.

Steve Cronin

<hr width=100% size=1>The above is, like any other post here, only a personal opinion

 

[Evadne]

Re: \"Compare their annual reports\"...

I've never been rescued by an RNLI lifeboat, but I don't begrudge paying their pensions. And that include the souls who sit in the office, not just the ones that get to play on the big orange speedboats.
Dave
(Offshore member - the only membership category that middle-income awb owners should admit to).
(end of smug mode)


<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Oldhand]

Re: £1 to raise £4

Not bad offices and facilities either! Many companies and employees make do with less so why does a charity require such posh facilities on a prime town centre site?

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[steve_cronin]

Re: £1 to raise £4

simply because, if you are going to respond to people volunteering to risk their lives to save others, you are duty bound to give them the absolute finest equipment that your resources can provide. This will mean also that you will want to provide the highest level of support, accomodation and maintenance for this equipment and personnel. So do you then skimp on the clerical & administrative support?

Forget to order the new lifejackets because it's still done on an old manual system or have a vital lifting derrick break because your drawing office was inadequate and failed to come up with the right design and where are you? All at sea and in a mess with confidence at a low.

Do the airliners you fly in get designed and developed in a slum by poorly paid people? NO? Why is that?

Steve Cronin

<hr width=100% size=1>The above is, like any other post here, only a personal opinion

 

[oldharry]

Re: £1 to raise £4

Couldnt agree more Steve. If people are prepared to put a lot of time and effort in training and then if necessary to put their lives on the line for the rest of us should we get into difficulties, then its down to us to make sure they have the best possible chance of getting through by giving them the best possible equipment, and the best possible back up right down the line. Think - think hard about what the people who man the Lifeboats get in return for their hard training and willingness to turn out even in survival conditions.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[davehu]

A governor of RNLI now pays £60 per year. Just the price of 2 good meals out. Think about it next time you having a meal out. I hope that there is NEVER any government funding for this superb service, if there was it would soon deteriote, money rather that service would be come all important

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Paul_H]

The leaflet from the guys and gals in orange suggests it cost £20 to run a lifeboat at full speed for 20 mins. Immediate thought was typical mobo'ers why dont they slow down a bit. Then realised the folly of my pithy remark and paid up.


<hr width=100% size=1>