Should we need to pay charity?

[studio150]

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.

Are you for real?

How many billions has Bill Gates put into his charity foundation, compared to the working class. Yes I know he's American but the same principle applys, in that there are many wealthy benefactors in the UK. Also many wealthy people look to keep their donations under the public eye.

Also charity work is very much supported by big business in the UK.

So £ for £ I would suggest you are way off .

 

[Gullflyinghigh]

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.

I see where you're coming from, and it's an interesting idea, I just don't see how it could be practical.

Off the top of my head there would be these questions to be answered;


- Which charities become state funded? All of them? If not, what criteria must they meet?

- Who decides how much each charity should get?

- What would decide the charities that deserve more focus? Would there need to be a department set up to decide whether the air ambulance, guide dogs or Alzheimer's is more worthy of funding than the other?

- Is there a risk that state funded charity becomes a polticial item, with manifestos including which causes will be better funded?

- If funded directly through taxes, is the government entitled to expect a return on investment/results from these organisations, justifying the cost to the public?

- What if taxpayers have (for some reason) moral objections to certain charities being included? Can they be removed?

- Can charities that believe they can raise more than they're given by the state still campaign for additional funding by the public?

I'm not trying to be difficult in putting those down, but the whole idea of charity (to me anyway) is that you can directly fund something that is important to you. For some people that will be cancer ir alzheimer's, whilst others will feel that abused animals or children are a worthier cause.

Should there be more state funding? I'd assume the answer to that would always be yes, but I don't think it could (or would) ever take the place of charities as they are.

Edit; Small point, but no-one needs to give to charity, you can choose to, or not.

 

[Sussex Nomad]

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.

I have not, at any point, said they don't contribute, I have merely stated, that, in my opinion, it usually rests on working class people's shoulders to shoulder the burden. I am very active in funding charities and have been for many years. But my point is/was, surely in a country such as ours, we should not be asking the people to give to charity when it should be funded by the Government?

 

[Thunder Bolt]

I have not, at any point, said they don't contribute, I have merely stated, that, in my opinion, it usually rests on working class people's shoulders to shoulder the burden. I am very active in funding charities and have been for many years. But my point is/was, surely in a country such as ours, we should not be asking the people to give to charity when it should be funded by the Government?

And where do the Government get their funds from? Taxes.

 

[Sussex Nomad]

And where do the Government get their funds from? Taxes.

I think I already mentioned that?

 

[Uh_huh_him]

This is a subject I have always struggled with.

There are certain charities (Cancer research, MIND, NAS etc) which must purely provide supplementary income for areas of the NHS which are already(or should be) funded by the state.
Does this mean that these areas run the risk of receiving less funding from the state, if there charitable arm is more successful in fundraising?

 

[Goldstone1976]

A couple of things to consider.

Total earned income for charities in England and Wales raising £10k or more pa is a tad over £70Bn pa.

1p in the £ increases in all bands of Income Tax, or VAT, or NI each raise ~£5Bn pa.

Thus, a 14p in the £ increase in Income Tax would remove the need for charities to do any fund raising in England and Wales. If you wanted to include Scotland and NI in your scheme, you'd need to raise taxes more still. And more again if you wanted to cover tiny charities too.

 

[GOM]

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.

 

[Sussex Nomad]

A couple of things to consider.

Total earned income for charities in England and Wales raising £10k or more pa is a tad over £70Bn pa.

1p in the £ increases in all bands of Income Tax, or VAT, or NI each raise ~£5Bn pa.

Thus, a 14p in the £ increase in Income Tax would remove the need for charities to do any fund raising in England and Wales. If you wanted to include Scotland and NI in your scheme, you'd need to raise taxes more still. And more again if you wanted to cover tiny charities too.

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

 

[Titanic]

A couple of things to consider.

Total earned income for charities in England and Wales raising £10k or more pa is a tad over £70Bn pa.

1p in the £ increases in all bands of Income Tax, or VAT, or NI each raise ~£5Bn pa.

Thus, a 14p in the £ increase in Income Tax would remove the need for charities to do any fund raising in England and Wales. If you wanted to include Scotland and NI in your scheme, you'd need to raise taxes more still. And more again if you wanted to cover tiny charities too.

Impressive figures... and only goes to show what a great country we live in. This is something we should be very proud of and defend and celebrate.

 

[hans kraay fan club]

Impressive figures... and only goes to show what a great country we live in. This is something we should be very proud of and defend and celebrate.

Agreed.

My twopenneth, FWIW:

I agree with the OP that SOME charities should not need to exist - that the state should fund the Air Ambulance, the Lifeboats, and I'll throw in hospice care, which should be part of the NHS remit, IMO.

As for his assertion that the bulk of charitable contribution is 'shouldered by' the working class - that is plainly nonsense.

 

[maltaseagull]

Every year I fork out a lot of money to charity, mainly animal welfare foundations. But, as a country, should we be having to pay towards charity? Or should the state be funding it? It always seems to be the working class that pay that bit extra, on top of our taxes and VAT. Is it time that we said enough and asked the Government to actually fund charity? After all, it is our money.

Yep why not?

Increase VAT to 25% or income tax by 5p in the pound should cover all our needs .

Oh and a bit more for all the unemployed charity workers.

 

[Drebin]

I think this thread proves that despite the OP's concerns about many of the most vunerable members of society not receiving the standard of welfare they need for a decent standard of living (a global and timeless problem), the culture of charity in (at least) Britain is well established and democratic. Everyone gets to give what they can to the cause they feel most strongly about.

This is the crux of the opening post. State sponsored charity is no longer charity as it is not voluntary. I choose to give my money to who I want. Before it was UNICEF, but after a particularly pressuring phone call my wife received at the start of the Syrian crisis, we changed to a different children's charity.

What I also admire about the culture of charity in the U.K. is sponsored activity. Charity also has the power to benefit those raising money and act as a motivation for a better lifestyle or simply for raising awareness amongst friends and family. State sponsored charity would weaken the appeal of such fundraising.

Where I live now sponsored running, cycling, hiking is pretty much unheard of and smaller charities are scarce. Which is shame.

 

[Sussex Nomad]

Yep why not?

Increase VAT to 25% or income tax by 5p in the pound should cover all our needs .

Oh and a bit more for all the unemployed charity workers.

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.

 

[Sussex Nomad]

I think this thread proves that despite the OP's concerns about many of the most vunerable members of society not receiving the standard of welfare they need for a decent standard of living (a global and timeless problem), the culture of charity in (at least) Britain is well established and democratic. Everyone gets to give what they can to the cause they feel most strongly about.

This is the crux of the opening post. State sponsored charity is no longer charity as it is not voluntary. I choose to give my money to who I want. Before it was UNICEF, but after a particularly pressuring phone call my wife received at the start of the Syrian crisis, we changed to a different children's charity.

What I also admire about the culture of charity in the U.K. is sponsored activity. Charity also has the power to benefit those raising money and act as a motivation for a better lifestyle or simply for raising awareness amongst friends and family. State sponsored charity would weaken the appeal of such fundraising.

Where I live now sponsored running, cycling, hiking is pretty much unheard of and smaller charities are scarce. Which is shame.

I don't disagree with a word you say, or those before that have come up with why we shouldn't have state sponsored money paying for basic and quite necessary needs. I just wanted to make the debate, and I still haven't seen a post that makes me think otherwise.

However, my most concerning thing is animal rights, which may not get channeled if we were to do away with charity. So I will happily back down on that one. I won't however, back down on why we need charity for cancer research or other life threatening illnesses. I find this quite staggering.

 

[Megazone]

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

Question what our tax money goes towards?

How much are we spending on war?

 

[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.

What [MENTION=3738]GOM[/MENTION] said. Giving to charity is not an easy choice, the easy choice is not giving at all.

 

[Diablo]

I think it is good to be able to give to charity of choice..I prefer local Hospice than say Oxfam....Taxing people more would hardly be popular and how does whoever decide who gets how much ??

 

[Sussex Nomad]

I think it is good to be able to give to charity of choice..I prefer local Hospice than say Oxfam....Taxing people more would hardly be popular and how does whoever decide who gets how much ??

Yep, I get the bit about the choices, difficult workaround there. But you have to admit, we have charities coming out of our ears nowadays, all heart tugging. We need to be able to look after the most severe cases of illness nowadays and that includes cancer and dementia, and not rely on people pumping money into it voluntarily.

 

[Megazone]

What [MENTION=3738]GOM[/MENTION] said. Giving to charity is not an easy choice, the easy choice is not giving at all.

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.