Thatcher suggested that 'there is no such a thing as a free lunch'; however there might be a free lunch, which in addition you are actually paid for eating! Of course, this depends on which spot on the uneven playing field your wealth allows you to be. It's like playing tennis on a slope; the player on the highest side of the court is very likely to  win,  but  imagine  it  costs  £ 100,000  to  be on that side.  Then  as  long  as  you  have  the £ 100,000  you  can win the £ 200,000 money prize the winner gets, which allows him or her to keep on buying the right to be on that side of the court for ever. The loser gets £ 10,000 and by the time he/she has lost 10 times and collected enough money to be on the top side of the court, it will cost £ 200,000!

                   Charity nowadays appears to be similar. Mega-rich Oldies give generously and with self advertising
                   publicity. They know their financial kickbacks will far outweigh their public donations.
                   Property planning permissions become easier, for example for the Sainsbury family.

                   Property owners and developers who are waiting for the political green light to privately fund new
                   transport systems, have to stay busy. Delays in planning permission can waste years. To keep fate
                   on side, it seems wise to fill in gaps in development schedules by doing good works.
                   Larger developers -Sainsbury's for instance - sponsor Opera and new wings of the National Gallery.

                   This gives the developer seats at top tables in the "arts world" and blunts criticism of appetites for
                   huge planning permissions (e.g. for hypermarkets).
                   RETAIL OLDIES
. In our humbler role we occasionally provide free rehearsal for drama and free
                   gallery space for our kind of art. Tracey Emin might despise it but free of charity we choose canvases
                   which are colourful, well executed, recognisable, often of the Impressionist variety or the traditional
                   Old Masters school of Realism.

                   Thus charitable giving is often not without expectation of a handsome return.

CharityCHAS heads up about 20 [1] charities and is never short of profitable land deals.
City bigshots, media people have joined Bob Geldof in giving BIG dough and getting it all back only BIGGER.

Read later how harmful a lot of "aid" is. The big shots encourage millions of little guys and girls to give generously. No wonder world charity can be described as transfer of money from nice, poor people in rich countries to big, bad guys in poor countries.

Charities rising in numbers

If the UK economy is a great success, there should be fewer charities each year, not an explosion in numbers. Workfare should be replacing welfare, state and private. If finances are scrutinized, many charities are de facto state welfare departments.

Giving for charity has become a more selfish act; the returns on the 'investment' are more important than the 'feel good' factor. So deciding whether to give to charity
                            I am not here!..

has become a "what's in it for me", and for many oldies part of their wealth enhancing game.

Like elsewhere, gentle, grey-haired oldies may act noble and nice but boy have they learned to play from the best end of sloping, unfair playing fields!

For their millions of poorer opponents, financial survival is not a game with fair rules. Instead, even in the U.K. - a supposed wealthy western nation - it's a daily life and death financial struggle. The charity playing field lets a few sunbathe and have a mojito, whilst down the road, there is a continuous earthquake.