I was just asked to pay anything between 2 and 12 GBP a month to CancerResearch UK.
If the top salary would be 150.000 for just one person, it works out to be that 6250 peoples "donations" for this good cause actually goes directly to some boss. Well I will certainly not be one of them.
I find this kind of salaries totally unacceptable for any charity.
A cap of 60.000 would be perfectly fine, that is already a very good salary.
It is no point to compare a charity to organisations were "legalised stealing" is "ok", like banks and politics.
Want my money? - Cap the salaries and provide completely transparent bookkeeping. How large % of all funds collected goes finally to the actual cause?

"So would you cap all charity leaders' pay at £87,500? Or would £90,000 be acceptable? How about £93,214.5? Precisely half the value of running the UK? The PM's salary."

It is the difference of being there for the pay or for the cause that makes that "business" a charity and not for profit organization, I suppose.

I think people should be payed an honest fee for their competence but just paying them as if you are a "regular" multinational business[1] sounds quite odd.

When the staff at all levels do not "wear" the brand of an organization, it is not the corresponding salary that will make it bigger or better.

Where did huge salaries to CEOs all over the World lead us to? Bankrupcy and a global finantial crisis.

[1] http://economia.publico.clix.pt/noticia.aspx?id=1343029 (in portuguese)

This debate has gone on in the sector for a while. However - one might use the cliche that 'if you pay peanuts, you'll get monkeys'.

IG wants to promote good governance and transparency. If you want a business of this size and complexity to be run effectively you will need to be able to attract the best people. Some charities are fortunate enough to be able to attract people who already have a very well-paid career in the private sector behind them, and are thus more able to swallow a pay cut.

Others recognise that in order to be able to retain and develop the best talent within the sector , without losing it to the private sector, salaries that are higher than the national average may be required.

So would you cap all charity leaders' pay at £87,500? Or would £90,000 be acceptable? How about £93,214.5? Precisely half the value of running the UK? The PM's salary.

If you pay the Chief Executive £87,500, then what about the divisional chiefs?

Can you ethically pay the leader (for leader they should be) of a medical charity less than some of the experts in the field?

Sorry, I don't have the answers, only the questions

Mikemuses, that's a good point - but I'd suggest that a better comparison is still with other chatity bosses, who get paid an awful lot less.

I always think: If Barbara Stocking at Oxfam gets only £87,500 a year (a magnificent amount in itself, if you ask me), then why does anyone else (in any charity) deserve any more?

I don't think there's a convincing answer to this.

Iain Coucher Deputy Chief Exec. Network Rail (tax money) £924,000
Richard Granger Chief Exec. NHS Connecting for Health £285,000 (yes the NHS with the massive IT overspend)
Even Stephen Geraghty Chief Exec of the exceptionally well run CSA gets £180,000.

It is a high salary, but it's a well performing charity

This is a pretty high salary.

On the other hand, the chief exec is running a £328 million business and some smaller charities pay their chief execs even more.

For example:
International Planned Parenthood Foundation
Top salary: £269,067 Annual Expenditure: £96 million

What do you think?

Peter Heywood
Benefactor, Intelligent Giving