Should we need to pay charity?

[Thunder Bolt]

All good fiscal points. But I'd still rather pay into the state than give handouts. The state relies on our handouts.

Raising taxes by 14% would put more people into poverty.

 

[Sussex Nomad]

Setting up a direct debit is not hard. The problem with it is it gives people the notion that they do their bit. When in fact, these issues our society faces, are only growing.

But you are 'doing your bit' when you set up a direct debit. Surely?

 

[Megazone]

But you are 'doing your bit' when you set up a direct debit. Surely?

That 'bit' isn't really a lot though, is it?

 

[Sussex Nomad]

Raising taxes by 14% would put more people into poverty.

I think in an ideal world (we will never have one) it won't be a raise of 14%, it would possibly be 3% once you've upped corporation tax, etc., etc. I am a die hard tory that seems to be going ever so much a bit socialist in my old age. Perhaps I'll need that NHS help soon!

 

[Sussex Nomad]

That 'bit' isn't really a lot though, is it?

Why not?

 

[beorhthelm]

I see that people are not aware that most charity funding is from taxes, there are substantial grants and payments to various charities from various government departments. i dont recall how much but its over half of charity sector funding and over £10bn. the bigger, more high profile the charity, the more they will be receiving large chunks of tax payer funding.

Charities exist because people want to do something, want to do more that the state or business can provide, they want to run services that are niche or not really viable on other basis (i.e. rely heavily on volunteers to provide labour). there's a handful that probably should be part of state funded operations (RNLI springs to mind), but mostly its optional things, a small group may think cause A is important, but vast majority of the population dont think about it.

 

[Sussex Nomad]

I see that people are not aware that most charity funding is from taxes, there are substantial grants and payments to various charities from various government departments. i dont recall how much but its over half of charity sector funding and over £10bn.

Charities exist because people want to do something, want to do more that the state or business can provide, they want to run services that are niche or not really viable on other basis (i.e. rely heavily on volunteers to provide labour). there's a handful that probably should be part of state funded operations (RNLI springs to mind), but mostly its optional things, a small group may think cause A is important, but vast majority of the population dont think about it.

But do you think the likes of the RNLI, Air Ambulance and Hospices should be brought within the remit of the state? And cancer research.

 

[Curious Orange]

We give charity money because it's an easy option. As a society, we walk past homeless people in freezing, dangerous conditions everyday.

and what do you suggest we do, invite them home with us ? or give to a charity that tries to help them.

Setting up a direct debit is not hard. The problem with it is it gives people the notion that they do their bit. When in fact, these issues our society faces, are only growing.

Be realistic, most people will not set up a direct debit to give to charity, but will chose to give to charities on an ad-hoc basis because they feel that what those charities do are deserving of support - and that really is people "doing their bit" when they actually don't have to do anything at all.

I don't know what issues you feel are growing, but I suspect as a society we like to find new things to worry about once the previous ones become either alleviated, or (and I hate to say this) boring. That isn't an indication that things are getting worse necessarily, just that societies concerns change. Don't forget that we live in a society which has become saturated with social media in the last decade, and it is now more easy to become aware of things that previously you'd have to look for yourself rather than having it pushed in front of your eyes on your mobile phone.

As for concerns about where our taxes actually get spent - everyone can have some influence on that:

https://www.writetothem.com/

 

[sydney]

Raising taxes by 14% would put more people into poverty.

there are plenty of people who could pay considerably more tax without even noticing it........plenty.....!! but they are never the ones to get the hit ....it's always the masses......wealthy people pay accountants to hide money and avoid tax......i have fully comp medical insurance for my whole family , i am putting 2 kids through private school , i have fully comp car insurance , fully comp home and contents insurance and fully comp income protection and death cover.......i can't afford to give to charity.

 

[Fungus]

I feel the same way about the RNLI. Countless lives have been saved by the lifeboats.

I believe the RNLI chooses to be funded this way, so as to be independent.

As you say, countless lives have been saved. It really annoys me that the AA think of themselves as "the fourth emergency service".

 

[Sussex Nomad]

there are plenty of people who could pay considerably more tax without even noticing it........plenty.....!! but they are never the ones to get the hit ....it's always the masses......wealthy people pay accountants to hide money and avoid tax......i have fully comp medical insurance for my whole family , i am putting 2 kids through private school , i have fully comp car insurance , fully comp home and contents insurance and fully comp income protection and death cover.......i can't afford to give to charity.

I can totally understand that. However if it was taken from your pay packet as a matter of course because you are paying for the RNLI, Cancer Research, etc., you would take it on the chin.

 

[CheeseRolls]

A resounding no from me, although at times the balance isn't right between state and charity.

Just did a rough calculation and our household is on 1.5-2% of net income donated to charity. Mrs Rolls manages to do some voluntary work (about to start as a school governor and some church work). No provision in our wills for charity.

Key beneficiaries via monthly direct debit are;
Anthony Nolan
International Rescue
St Barnabus

Others are ad-hoc collections and sponsorship.

Key criteria for charities for me;
1 People over animals.
2 Less talk more action - too many big charities with high overheads.
3 International aid matters.

 

[Sussex Nomad]

Key criteria for charities for me;
1 People over animals.

You see, we are all different (thankfully) and I am totally animals over people. Nearly all my hard earnt charity goes towards animal welfare.

 

[Normski1989]

I completely agree that some charities should be funded by the government. In particular, those that focus on saving lives like RNLI and Air Ambulance. The NHS do carry out a lot of medical research, including into cancer, so the idea that the government don't support the fight against cancer is ridiculous.

However, I don't think all charities should be funded by the state. For example, providing sick children with amazing holidays and gifts is a very noble and great to see, but there are (in absence of a better word) 'better' uses of the governments money. Don't get me wrong, I think the work that these charities do is great. I have often raised money for Round Table Children's Wish, and I will be doing a run in April to raise money for AITC, but their work isn't a necessity.

One final point... As an accountant, I find it slightly insulting that people claim we help the upper classes hide their money and avoid tax. That isn't the duty of any respectable accountant. Also, from my experience, most of my wealthier clients pay more than their fair share to charity. Just because they don't all make a song and dance about it, doesn't mean that they don't do it.

 

[happypig]

I am a die hard tory !

Interesting that a "die hard tory" is advocating higher taxation and less choice.

 

[Sussex Nomad]

I completely agree that some charities should be funded by the government. In particular, those that focus on saving lives like RNLI and Air Ambulance. The NHS do carry out a lot of medical research, including into cancer, so the idea that the government don't support the fight against cancer is ridiculous.

I never for one moment suggested that state money is not spent on cancer research.

 

[Sussex Nomad]

Interesting that a "die hard tory" is advocating higher taxation and less choice.

So why did you only quote that and not the bit after? Are you Murdoch in disguise?

 

[Normski1989]

It is our money, we pay taxes and are still asked to shelve out our hard earnt. Are we not a forward enough thinking country to do away with having to rely on people's good will? Things like cancer shouldn't be a charity donation, it should be a right to care.

Your comment here didn't outright say that the government doesn't fund cancer research, but implied that it relies on charity donations. Yes, the charity donations help fund additional research which should ultimately help find a cure faster, but the research will still continue without the charitable donations.

 

[Sussex Nomad]

Your comment here didn't outright say that the government doesn't fund cancer research, but implied that it relies on charity donations. Yes, the charity donations help fund additional research which should ultimately help find a cure faster, but the research will still continue without the charitable donations.

It relies hugely on charity donations, and without them the state would have to find money that comes from a shortfall. The state is reliant on charity donations.

 

[happypig]

So why did you only quote that and not the bit after? Are you Murdoch in disguise?

It's not relevant. You state you are a die hard tory but advocate higher taxation, something the tories almost always oppose.