£1000 is affordable yes but make it £2000 flat fee and it isn’t.
it either needs to be readily affordable and worked up, or proportional.
I am not sure how “more local funding = the same as they do” > more is an increase.
That’s why the figure of a £1000.
Make it say £2K and immediately it becomes more burdensome and some squadrons would fold.
For every cadet that is lost, IIRC they take £2.50/cadet/11 months that’s a loss of £27.50. As the document above mentioned the MOD is cutting down on its provision and the ATC itself is gap filling as we all know.
That would do the opposite - paying for non-existent cadets (who of course won’t be paying subs) helps to stop people from artificially inflating their numbers.
I’m not sure what problem your flat-rate scheme is meant to fix.
Like so many things what we do subs wise is a “we’ve always done it like that”, well not always, but for sometime.
What a fixed rate does is provide certainty and makes planning easier. We paid a fixed amount by standing order for our mortgage and we do the same for gas and electrtic, so we know what those outgoings are . We paid the mortgage off several years ago and are just in credit (c.£10/qtr) with the gas/electric.
So if HQAC knows that year on year it will get ‘x’ based on the number of squadrons as opposed to the ‘y’ of a figure based on fluid cadet numbers, that has to be better for planning. The membership can be paid monthly, so it’s not a single or 6 monthly hit. This provides squadron with an assured knowledge that each month (based on £1k/pa) £83.33 goes and doesn’t get missed.
But your bills are based on the size of the property - not how many mortgages the lender has outstanding (so your argument falls down a bit there!).
BIgger squadrons offer more and do more anyway so there’s not an issue with £1,000 to them - as opposed to the smaller squadrons who will have that money sting a bit more and MAY reduce their offering a little.
1 Like
Mortgage payments are based on the amount you borrow, which largely revolves around the area; ‘nice area’ pay lots, ‘crap area’ pay less for equivalent sized buildings. Standing charges are more to do with the connection to the gas, electricity or gas, the major part is consumption based. Hence the reason for people moving suppliers to save a few quid.
As I say by having a fixed membership you eradicate the variability. Just by reading the reports above there is acceptance that cadet numbers have been and are reducing and reading between the lines you can see the pro rata money grab increasing to keep the status quo. Much of the reducing numbers are squadrons dumping cadets. We do it once a quarter
OC Wing popping overseas on Welfare fund expenses
Surely those with Sqns overseas & on U.K. islands get that funded publicly?
Most Wings contribute to Overseas Camps, IACE & act as a “Clearing House” for payments to/from HQAC (especially for WSOs who have no Sqns to have their Accts4s paid to).
I suspect you should know that isn’t the case. Though I agree t should be.
From the GPF?
Charity to Charity … hmm
What’s wrong with that?
He has strong feelings about charities funding charities, see super squadron thread for more info…
He may well do, but I suspect he may be on his own on that one…
You’d think that…alas the aforementioned Super Squadron thread has a plethora of people with strong feelings on the matter, including that 3 squadron’s merging should have meant all 3 squadron’s surrendered their funds because the new merged squadron wasn’t entitled to any of the money…with it being a new charity.
1 Like
It is quite clear that a charity cannot just give money to another charity, unless it specifies that any money raised will be passed to others and they may set criteria for doing this. This could be written into their constitution or specified for an event. We have had money from Moose International, Rotary, Lions and the Mayor’s charity fund. The Rotary and Lions put on a rather nice bunfight. 
The Legion and RAFA have paid or contributed to the cost for cadets to do things, as part of the community side of things.
If I donated money to a charity without a caveat about recipients I would expect that to be used for the benefit of those supported by the charity, not handed out willy nilly.
When I find that I’m being given information that is full of holes and then a bit of research gives rise to questions that leave people who should know floundering and talking rubbish, followed by the discovery that there are plenty of people out and about who realise the same, then I feel compelled to thoroughly research the situation.
Everyone is entitled to the view point of course. I just know from that research that the current funding structure for the ACO is not a comfortable fit and could leave well-meaning individuals (and has in the past) being hung out to dry if ever a situation reached the courts. HQ-AC knows that as it consistently pays out to stop anything getting that far. So there at least is some surety for those that wish to ignore my points, but it isn’t right and rather contradicts the values we should all espouse.
On that basis I offer information that people can take heed of, ignore or debate.
1 Like
Couldn’t that argument apply to lots of other issues in the RAFAC?
Sure … but beyond safeguarding, I can’t think of one that has the legal potential for unlimited personal loss
1 Like
And I totally agree.
Especially as ignorance is no excuse in the eyes of the law!!
1 Like
So parents pay the Wing for a camp & the Wing send a consolidated cheque to HQAC…how is that different from for example RAFA branches collecting money for Wings Appeal & forwarding that to RAFA HQ (& for info each branch is its own registered charity)?
Also having chatted to someone in a Wing with an island Sqn, travel to/from those units to support training or carry out other RAFAC business is publicly funded. (Often costing more than if booked privately).
So really don’t get Aries point about funding “overseas jollies” by staff.
HQAC isn’t a charity … it is a service provider to the Wing charity in that example.
So therefore it’s not Charity to Charity.