Should we need to pay charity?

[Frutos]

How would you determine which causes benefit or not? Charities which are important to me may be less so to you - surely better to let people make their own choice as to what to support and how?

 

[Sussex Nomad]

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

Just for you...

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]

How would you determine which causes benefit or not? Charities which are important to me may be less so to you - surely better to let people make their own choice as to what to support and how?

I don't disagree, I just believe there is a better way forward.

 

[Normski1989]

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.

Without the donations, the cancer research department would be significantly smaller and carry out research at a much slower pace, but it would still operate on a smaller scale.

I'm not arguing that the donations aren't important, because they are. But your original post implies that the government should be funding the work carried out by charities, and you later refer to cancer research as one of those causes. The government is funding cancer research, but can only afford to provide it with a limited budget to work with. In order to provide a higher level of funding, it would have to increase tax in some way and then half of this extra money wouldn't end up reaching the charities anyway . Although a lot of people would accept this, there are a lot of others that wouldn't. By keeping the money in your pocket, you can choose which charities to support and ensure the organisations that you feel are worthy of the support actually receive it.

 

[studio150]

But if it is funded this way doesn't it mean we all pay equally for our health, rescue services, etc., etc. I know it is a far reaching thought.

You are clueless if you think if this was adopted we would all pay the same.

Just looking at one aspect a 5p rise in income tax. So how many people earning under the tax threshold would contribute.

As a clue its a round number less than 1.

Maybe you should time travel back to Communist Russia where everyone was equal all wages were equal and paid by the state and all welfare was provided by the state.

Utopia?

 

[Berty23]

The key point for me is about choice and ensuring small charities can exist. If the state funded all then how would small charities exist? The bureaucracy to get small charities money would be monumental and would need to be in place because people would set up bogus charities.

This is quite personal to me because in 2010 my wife was diagnosed with a very rare cancer while pregnant with our twin girls. She had a cancerous eye Timor and there are only about 500 cases a year in the U.K. The treatment is incredibly specialised and is led out of Liverpool hospital. They would receive aid all funding if it was a bun fight for government funding so it is important that they can get specific donations. Thankfully she has recovered and everyone is okay but we were lucky. We have raised about 10k for "the eye tumour research fund" which funds life saving research. For a small charity that is a lot of money and more than they would receive from a simple division of funds. Our friends and family (and some one here) donated to the specific charity and knew where the money was going.

We have a donation set in our wills. Imagine giving this donation to the government!

 

[Sussex Nomad]

You are clueless if you think if this was adopted we would all pay the same.

Just looking at one aspect a 5p rise in income tax. So how many people earning under the tax threshold would contribute.

As a clue its a round number less than 1.

Maybe you should time travel back to Communist Russia where everyone was equal all wages were equal and paid by the state and all welfare was provided by the state.

Utopia?

First person to accuse me of being clueless, took 9 pages so not bad. If you think a cut in charities would be a 5p raise I should ask who the clueless one really is? And if taxation meant we knew year on year how much was going into solving health problems that affect MUCH of the population, we wouldn't really complain. So thanks for the 'clueless' remark.

 

[Guinness Boy]

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

We walk past people with cancer everyday. It doesn't make us all research scientists or surgeons. We walk past pregnant people every day. It doesn't mean we should stop them in the street and give them anti natal advice (the National Childbirth Trust is a charity that provides this though). All summer long we see kids on the beach doing stupid stuff. Doesn't make us qualified to go out on a boat and rescue them. Charities - the good ones at least - provide expertise as well as funding. Our choice as individual humans - most definitely NOT the government - is which to support and how much.

 

[Sussex Nomad]

Without the donations, the cancer research department would be significantly smaller and carry out research at a much slower pace, but it would still operate on a smaller scale.

I'm not arguing that the donations aren't important, because they are. But your original post implies that the government should be funding the work carried out by charities, and you later refer to cancer research as one of those causes. The government is funding cancer research, but can only afford to provide it with a limited budget to work with. In order to provide a higher level of funding, it would have to increase tax in some way and then half of this extra money wouldn't end up reaching the charities anyway . Although a lot of people would accept this, there are a lot of others that wouldn't. By keeping the money in your pocket, you can choose which charities to support and ensure the organisations that you feel are worthy of the support actually receive it.

The state should fund it, yes. The budget would not be limited. Well it would, but no less than now. I find it embarrassing that our country has TV shows to raise money when our state should be funding it.

 

[Westdene Seagull]

Again, maybe I didn't word it right, in which case my bad, but that is not the point of this subject. What I am trying to explain is that a country like ours should not be asking for extra money because the current (whatever) Government will not pay towards vital needs. Cancer is one such thing. So we have charities that come knocking on our doors with begging bowls. It IS wrong. This is the state washing their hands of anything outside of their remit. We should have a right to services, not sit in the street with our begging bowls asking for help to get some treatment that will kill us if we can't raise the money. This is totally wrong in the kind of society we live in.

Define vital though ? How far should this government funding go ? The RSPCA ? National Trust ? FSNBF ? Brighton Lions ? REMF ?

 

[Sussex Nomad]

The key point for me is about choice and ensuring small charities can exist. If the state funded all then how would small charities exist? The bureaucracy to get small charities money would be monumental and would need to be in place because people would set up bogus charities.

This is quite personal to me because in 2010 my wife was diagnosed with a very rare cancer while pregnant with our twin girls. She had a cancerous eye Timor and there are only about 500 cases a year in the U.K. The treatment is incredibly specialised and is led out of Liverpool hospital. They would receive aid all funding if it was a bun fight for government funding so it is important that they can get specific donations. Thankfully she has recovered and everyone is okay but we were lucky. We have raised about 10k for "the eye tumour research fund" which funds life saving research. For a small charity that is a lot of money and more than they would receive from a simple division of funds. Our friends and family (and some one here) donated to the specific charity and knew where the money was going.

We have a donation set in our wills. Imagine giving this donation to the government!

Very happy to read all is well Berty.

 

[studio150]

First person to accuse me of being clueless, took 9 pages so not bad. If you think a cut in charities would be a 5p raise I should ask who the clueless one really is? And if taxation meant we knew year on year how much was going into solving health problems that affect MUCH of the population, we wouldn't really complain. So thanks for the 'clueless' remark.

Well done totally over looked the point I was making when you stated that by raising tax we would all be paying the same. Please explain how this happens if you believe that

 

[Sussex Nomad]

Define vital though ? How far should this government funding go ? The RSPCA ? National Trust ? FSNBF ? Brighton Lions ? REMF ?

Life threatening illnesses? Just throwing it in.

 

[Sussex Nomad]

Well done totally over looked the point I was making when you stated that by raising tax we would all be paying the same. Please explain how this happens if you believe that

Do we not pay a fair rate of tax based on our earnings?

 

[Normski1989]

The state should fund it, yes. The budget would not be limited. Well it would, but no less than now. I find it embarrassing that our country has TV shows to raise money when our state should be funding it.

Where do you expect the additional money to come from?

 

[Sussex Nomad]

Where do you expect the additional money to come from?

Keep up.

 

[Normski1989]

Keep up.

Keeping up with your ever changing story is impossible.

You want a tax hike to make it fair, yet a huge proportion of our population don't actually pay tax. That's not fair.

You want the government to fund charity work, which would require an endless supply of money. A lot more than a 5% tax increase. But then decide that the government should only fund 'vital' charity work. A few posts earlier, you clearly said 'animals over people'. So is the RSPCA more vital than cancer research or the air ambulance?

You seem to have a lovely idea but have yet to put forward one decent proposal as to how or why it should happen.

 

[beorhthelm]

The state should fund it, yes. The budget would not be limited. Well it would, but no less than now. I find it embarrassing that our country has TV shows to raise money when our state should be funding it.

i think you're overlooking that charities and charitable giving would continue if you did provide more state funding for this and that cause. you could put 5% more spending on GDP, with the increases in taxes to fund, and there would still be causes that people want to contribute towards.

 

[Megazone]

We walk past people with cancer everyday. It doesn't make us all research scientists or surgeons. We walk past pregnant people every day. It doesn't mean we should stop them in the street and give them anti natal advice (the National Childbirth Trust is a charity that provides this though). All summer long we see kids on the beach doing stupid stuff. Doesn't make us qualified to go out on a boat and rescue them. Charities - the good ones at least - provide expertise as well as funding. Our choice as individual humans - most definitely NOT the government - is which to support and how much.

The problem with charities is they often target symptoms, not causes. Combating problems like poverty involves slow processes of political, cultural and social change.

 

[Guinness Boy]

The problem with charities is they often target symptoms, not causes. Combating problems like poverty involves slow processes of political, cultural and social change.

Which is precisely why I gave you the examples of Cancer Research (who, wait for it, do research in to cancer causes), the NCT (who campaign for better maternity services for all women and offer course discounts close to 100% for the poorest) and the RNLI who do loads of work on water safety awareness. Or, take your example. homelessness. Shelter are targeting safe, secure, affordable housing for EVERYONE (http://england.shelter.org.uk/our_work). By contrast you'd be helping a symptom by inviting in a homeless person for the night.