Should we need to pay charity?

[heathgate]

Excuse me if I'm wrong but I don't think you understand what I am getting at. I would rather pay 1p in the £ more to rid us of having to beg for charity and have it state funded than having to keep giving when the state has no interest in looking after the welfare of those afflicted by whatever harm has come to them.

At what point do you make a call on who gets what under your utopian open cheque book policy? There is a limited pot, so funds are distributed in the best way possible. With reference to the poor, do you just throw £35k a year at them and then wash your hands of them? What gets sacrificed to pay for Cancer research, or to eliminate any poverty?...

By the way,... it would have to be a lot more than 1p in the £ increase to cover everything,...

 

[Curious Orange]

I think the point is being missed that charity isn't just about health and the poor - there are plenty of other charities that look after our culture and heritage, a lot of tourist attractions are backed by charities to ensure they can stay open. Are we suggesting they are all funded through general taxation too?

For me charity is about being able to choose the causes that you either donate or raise money for. It is a personal choice.

 

[TheJasperCo]

I hate the fact that bigger charities spend so much money on excessive staff salaries, perks, branding and advertisements instead of actually investing in research, or aid. That's why if I were to support particular charities it would be strictly local ones. The air ambulance as stated above is a good shout, Ferring Country Centre is another one, as is St Barnabas Hospice.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

I find it outrageous that Emergency Air Ambulances are entirely charity funded. That's one area where the government should be funding in my opinion.

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

As for the OPs suggestion that the State should fund everything, we would end up paying 80% taxes. The way charities work, we can chose what we contribute to. It would require thousands of civil servants to administer the payments with more public spending.

Do you think the State would fund a mini bus for Albion in the Community? The excellent charity REMF has done that, and given us a great cause to work for and support.

 

[Megazone]

Doesn't the fact our society relies on charity proves it's failing?

 

[Thunder Bolt]

But I don't want to donate to charities, I want my state to look after us. The whole idea of charity in a western democracy just fills me with dread. We should be looked after, we pay enough into the system, not go with a begging bowl and ask for more.

The government doesn't have any money of it's own. They borrow and spend our taxes.

 

[Sussex Nomad]

At what point do you make a call on who gets what under your utopian open cheque book policy? There is a limited pot, so funds are distributed in the best way possible. With reference to the poor, do you just throw £35k a year at them and then wash your hands of them? What gets sacrificed to pay for Cancer research, or to eliminate any poverty?...

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.

 

[GOM]

Well, I do, but that's not the point of the subject.

Yes it is

 

[AmexRuislip]

there are plenty of other charities that look after our culture and heritage, a lot of tourist attractions are backed by charities to ensure they can stay open

National Trust and English Heritage for starters.

For me charity is about being able to choose the causes that you either donate or raise money for. It is a personal choice.

 

[gazingdown]

It always seems to be the working class that pay that bit extra

What do you mean by this?

I trust you are not ignorantly suggesting that middle and upper classes don't give to charity are you?

Regardless, charity means YOU choose who gets your money rather than "someone" you don't know deciding (and most probably not giving to charity you want to support in favour of another that you don't)

 

[Sussex Nomad]

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

As for the OPs suggestion that the State should fund everything, we would end up paying 80% taxes. The way charities work, we can chose what we contribute to. It would require thousands of civil servants to administer the payments with more public spending.

Do you think the State would fund a mini bus for Albion in the Community? The excellent charity REMF has done that, and given us a great cause to work for and support.

Good points.

 

[Curious Orange]

Doesn't the fact our society relies on charity proves it's failing?

No, it just proves that as a society we do actually care about things. That is a positive attribute if you ask me.

 

[Sussex Nomad]

What do you mean by this?

I trust you are not ignorantly suggesting that middle and upper classes don't give to charity are you?

Regardless, charity means YOU choose who gets your money rather than "someone" you don't know deciding (and most probably not giving to charity you want to support in favour of another that you don't)

No I do realise the middle and uppers pay their whack in charity. But it is the working class that always tend to make the majority of the money available to charity.

 

[gazingdown]

Can you substantiate that claim?

 

[Sussex Nomad]

Can you substantiate that claim?

No I can't, hence I said 'tends'. It is in my opinion.

 

[Tyrone Biggums]

Back when there was no welfare charities and family and community helped people out when they were down.

Welfare breaks down family units, communities and makes people reliant on the Government. Just what the Government wants, slaves to their systems.

 

[Notters]

I find it outrageous that Emergency Air Ambulances are entirely charity funded. That's one area where the government should be funding in my opinion.

Not to mention the Lifeboats.

Edit - I see [MENTION=14365]Thunder Bolt[/MENTION] has beaten me to it.

Seems mad that they rely on volunteers and charity handouts.

 

[gazingdown]

No I can't, hence I said 'tends'. It is in my opinion.

I rather suspect it had nothing to do with "class" whatsoever. Some people give none, some a little, some a lot. I don't think their "class" comes into it at all.

 

[Megazone]

No, it just proves that as a society we do actually care about things. That is a positive attribute if you ask me.

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

 

[Thunder Bolt]

No I do realise the middle and uppers pay their whack in charity. But it is the working class that always tend to make the majority of the money available to charity.

There are lots of ways to give to charity, money being a proportion of that. Lots of middle and upper class people give their time as volunteers.