Profit

[ahinton]

So now it's Profit v. Apostrophes. Are they connected issues or distinct ones?

As I'd noted! Connected? You betcha! I bought a job lot of apostrophies at the local car boot sale last Sunday and I've just sold them all at 300% gross profit (don't tell the taxman).

[Beef Oven!]

As I'd noted! Connected? You betcha! I bought a job lot of apostrophies at the local car boot sale last Sunday and I've just sold them all at 300% gross profit (don't tell the taxman).

That's even better than Maggie's sixpence to a shilling - are you from a gentrified background?

[Flosshilde]

[Thatcher] didn't exactly come from a gentrified background.

I think she definitely came from a gentrified background, but not gentry.

[Beef Oven!]

As I'd noted! Connected? You betcha! I bought a job lot of apostrophies at the local car boot sale last Sunday and I've just sold them all at 300% gross profit (don't tell the taxman).

Frank Zappa only had one apostrophe, but he made more profit than that!

[ahinton]

That's even better than Maggie's sixpence to a shilling - are you from a gentrified background?

Moi? Non! God forbid (and He did). But then I suspect that what Mrs T meant wasn't so much that she believed that capitalism IS turning sixpence into a shilling but that it STARTS by being that!

[ahinton]

Frank Zappa only had one apostrophe, but he made more profit than that!

Ah, indeed! But did he or anyone on his behalf tell the taxman?

[Beef Oven!]

Ah, indeed! But did he or anyone on his behalf tell the taxman?

FZ paid all his taxes and even had some useful advice for the IRS. And as per MrGG's second generation OP, FZ wasn't in it for the profit, it was other benefits (even though he must've made a few bob).

[Richard Barrett]

FZ wasn't in it for the profit

.. despite claiming otherwise in one of his earliest album titles...

[Dave2002]

There are a few areas where non profit may present "issues" for some.

1. A company which makes a profit, but then uses part of that profit to subsidise a loss making enterprise.

I think at least one recording company did that because the guy at the top wanted to have a legacy of recordings by a British composer.

Whats's wrong? Not much, unless you are an accountant!

2. People who work for nothing, or very little, Some work in the NHS. I knew one male nurse who would even turn up to work on his days off. Great guy.

Why did he do that? Was it a sense of responsibility, or did he really like the work? Some of it was probably rewarding, but some may have been unpleasant.

3. Voluntary workers. School governors, councillors, magistrates etc.?

Why?

An argument against paying them is that "it would attract the wrong sort of people", and there are others, but would some remuneration make sense?

Do these people really like what they do, or are they driven by a sense of social reponsibility?

4. Then there are people who genuinely like what they do, and would do it anyway, whether paid or not.

[Sir Velo]

There are a few areas where non profit may present "issues" for some.

3. Voluntary workers. School governors, councillors, magistrates etc.?

Why?

An argument against paying them is that "it would attract the wrong sort of people", and there are others, but would some remuneration make sense?

Most of these will have their expenses reimbursed, so will not be out of pocket. As such this theoretically enables anyone from any walk of life to act in the capacity of governance.

Once you get into the area of remuneration of trustees and the like you run the risk of a conflict of interest, ie. these individuals are supposed to be without a vested interest. The executives of an organisation, with which you seem to be confusing those charged with governance, are the ones who will get remunerated.

[Beef Oven!]

.. despite claiming otherwise in one of his earliest album titles...

Lol! Yes, of course!

(even FZ's allowed a moment of light hearted false-consciousness)

[Dave2002]

Most of these will have their expenses reimbursed, so will not be out of pocket. As such this theoretically enables anyone from any walk of life to act in the capacity of governance.

No. This is not always the case, unless the expenses are significant. Also the time involved can be very considerable, and people who are solely interested in making money (profit) would find "better" things to do.

Of course there are some voluntary positions where the "benefits" to those carrying them out may be of interest, such as travel and subsistence, but not all are like that. If one likes travel, and doesn't mind the "work" then some people might find such positions appealing. The fact is there are still many "jobs" which people don't have to do, are effectively unpaid, yet people still do them.

Also, there is a very large work force of hidden workers, who may care for children, sick and elderly people, often, but not always, relatives. Some of these give up the chance to become richer themselves in order to help others, while in the meantime the "wealth creators" carry on.

[ahinton]

Most of these will have their expenses reimbursed, so will not be out of pocket. As such this theoretically enables anyone from any walk of life to act in the capacity of governance.

In so saying you appear to take little or no account of the fact that, in almost all cases, time spent working on a volutary basis is time that cannot also be spent working for payment, so anyone doing the former will be "out of pocket" to the extent of the amounts that he/she could instead have earned, or profits that he/she could instead have made; mere reimbursement of incidental expenses incurred as a direct consequence of undertaking certain voluntary (i.e. unpaid) work does not of itself mean that the person doing that work won't be "out of pocket", provided that he/she remains capable of earning money or making a profit out of doing paid work.

Once you get into the area of remuneration of trustees and the like you run the risk of a conflict of interest, ie. these individuals are supposed to be without a vested interest. The executives of an organisation, with which you seem to be confusing those charged with governance, are the ones who will get remunerated.

I don't see that; surely everyone who works has some kind of vested interest/s, be that work paid or unpaid or be it for a charity, or an employer, or one's own business; conflicts of interest can risk arising in many walks of working life and on all strata of working hierarchies (for want of a better word), sometimes deliberately, sometimes unwittingly and sometimes unavoidably - and it's not necessarily anyone's fault either.

Also, getting sufficient numbers of sufficiently well qualified people to act in capacities such as that of trustee might not always be as easy as it seems. Pension trustees, for example, bear enormous responsibilities for those contributing to their pensions (be they employees, employers or the self-employed) and even for those with pensions already vested (i.e. in payment); the consequences of their getting things wrong can be immense for large numbers of people. I don't know how many pension trustees there are working at any one time in UK but, given the number of pensions providers and the numbers of people contributing to and receiving pensions, I imagine that the number cannot be small. Would you expect all such people to do all of ther work without remuneration? Apart from any other considerations, those who do unpaid voluntary work can neither be "sacked" as such nor forced to continue to work in their voluntary capacities.

[ahinton]

No. This is not always the case, unless the expenses are significant. Also the time involved can be very considerable, and people who are solely interested in making money (profit) would find "better" things to do.

Indeed, although this applies not only to "profiteers" per se but also to those who cannot afford not to derive incomes from working, either as employees or in their own businesses.

[Sir Velo]

I don't see that; surely everyone who works has some kind of vested interest/s, be that work paid or unpaid or be it for a charity, or an employer, or one's own business; conflicts of interest can risk arising in many walks of working life and on all strata of working hierarchies (for want of a better word), sometimes deliberately, sometimes unwittingly and sometimes unavoidably - and it's not necessarily anyone's fault either.

Well, that is the thinking which underpins the principle - take it or leave it!

Also, getting sufficient numbers of sufficiently well qualified people to act in capacities such as that of trustee might not always be as easy as it seems. Pension trustees, for example, bear enormous responsibilities for those contributing to their pensions (be they employees, employers or the self-employed) and even for those with pensions already vested (i.e. in payment); the consequences of their getting things wrong can be immense for large numbers of people. I don't know how many pension trustees there are working at any one time in UK but, given the number of pensions providers and the numbers of people contributing to and receiving pensions, I imagine that the number cannot be small.

Most pensions trustees who are employees will be given time off work to fulfil their duties. Clearly as many have a vested interest (either as employees, ex employees, deferred or actual pensioners) I don't think too many would think it that onerous that they take some of their own personal time to ensure that their retirement benefits are being managed and invested wisely!

Would you expect all such people to do all of ther work without remuneration?

There is some ambiguity in the way you express yourself but you seem to be misattributing sentiments to me that I haven't uttered in any shape or form!

Apart from any other considerations, those who do unpaid voluntary work can neither be "sacked" as such nor forced to continue to work in their voluntary capacities.

I'm afraid that's where you're highlighting that old truism that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing! Trustees can be asked to stand down, and can be prosecuted if it can be shown that they did not exercise sufficient oversight. What you seem to be overlooking is that people can actually want to give something back to society without being paid for it!