Should we need to pay charity?

[Dr. No]

No.

 

[Sussex Nomad]

I agree it is ridiculous for organisations like the RNLI and Air Ambulance services to require charitable support just to survive. They are what we pay our taxes for surely?

I contribute to nearly every cause at the Amex but did find myself thinking when it came to the recent REMF minibus that if the players and top executives at the club gave up just 5% of their pay for a week REMF could have had their minibus in a week! As someone pointed out earlier in the thread it does tend to be those who have the least who contribute the most to charities.

I always find this the case. People on 500k really shouldn't be looking for money from those on 20K or such.

 

[Sussex Nomad]

Don't answer the question then that's your privilege but it says volumes about your inability to understand the issue

Please feel free to tell me the errors of my way.

 

[Normski1989]

I think I have made myself perfectly clear, forgive me if I haven't. I am actually open to suggestions and have read a few very good defining emails against the idea. You will notice, because I have 'liked' the comments. At no point have I said animals above humans, I have said that that is my preference. I have not put words into anyone's mouth. I do want the state to fund critical needs yes. Is that wrong? I don't want them relying on handouts to support those needs. Is that wrong? We are. allegedly, a first world nation, but we do not treat our citizens as such. Is that wrong? I'm not trying to get into some binfest here.

It's not wrong to want the state to fund the noble work carried out by every charity in the country. It'd be great if that could happen without having to reduce the funding given to other areas of national interest such as education and the NHS. But that's simply not feasible, and you've yet to provide any evidence that it is.

You suggested increasing tax because that's 'fair'. So you think it's fair to make hard working people pay an extra five per cent (which wouldn't be enough) of their income in tax to fund charities... Meanwhile, millions of people below the tax threshold would continue to pay nothing.

 

[Uh_huh_him]

~£20Bn in personal donations
~£25Bn selling stuff to the public/rent from property(not sure of this split, but last time I looked it was 70/30 selling stuff)
~£8Bn grants
~£8Bn corporate donations
~£6Bn investment income (I excluded capital gains)
~£4Bn Others

that is quite staggering.

Personal donations account for about £300 per person per year ( I think).
I certainly don't contribute £1500 for my family.


Where does the Lottery feature in the above list?
I assume that is part of corporate donations -

Considering the tax and marketing advantages available, I would think the figure would be higher from corporations

 

[Sussex Nomad]

It's not wrong to want the state to fund the noble work carried out by every charity in the country. It'd be great if that could happen without having to reduce the funding given to other areas of national interest such as education and the NHS. But that's simply not feasible, and you've yet to provide any evidence that it is.

You suggested increasing tax because that's 'fair'. So you think it's fair to make hard working people pay an extra five per cent (which wouldn't be enough) of their income in tax to fund charities... Meanwhile, millions of people below the tax threshold would continue to pay nothing.

I wasn't trying to provide evidence, I was trying to stimulate debate. I have seen many good reasons to keep charities running and many that say we don't need it. I am purely the purveyor of a subject that I find close to my heart. My dad died in a hospice, St Barnabus (scuse spelling), but I tend to believe they should not run hand to mouth. They should be free to us without the need of charity funding. Tell me I'm wrong. Chestnut was a project started by a very good friend of mine, but why do we have to do this? I have raised thousands in the past decade and I do it out of passion. But why are we doing this in a cash rich country?

 

[Normski1989]

I wasn't trying to provide evidence, I was trying to stimulate debate. I have seen many good reasons to keep charities running and many that say we don't need it. I am purely the purveyor of a subject that I find close to my heart. My dad died in a hospice, St Barnabus (scuse spelling), but I tend to believe they should not run hand to mouth. They should be free to us without the need of charity funding. Tell me I'm wrong. Chestnut was a project started by a very good friend of mine, but why do we have to do this? I have raised thousands in the past decade and I do it out of passion. But why are we doing this in a cash rich country?

As I said, I think that the work carried out by charities is very admirable. I also try to raise money for charity as often as I can, without becoming a nuisance by constantly asking for sponsorship from friends and family.

In an ideal world, there would be government funded organisations to provide hospice care, look after neglected animals etc... But there simply isn't enough money, unless you force hard working people to pay for it. I'd happily see certain government benefits, such as jobseekers allowance, cut by 25% to help fund charity work. But there are other people that wouldn't agree.

There is another problem that I see too. I have often raised money for Round Table Childrens Wish, as I have a connection to that charity. It helps fund once in a life time holidays for terminally ill children. But if the government decided to fund their work and pay for 100 terminally ill children to visit Disneyland, there would be people that'd disagree with the way that money was spent. "Why are they given a free holiday just because they're sick" is something I'd expect to hear.

 

[Goldstone1976]

that is quite staggering.

Personal donations account for about £300 per person per year ( I think).
I certainly don't contribute £1500 for my family.


Where does the Lottery feature in the above list?
I assume that is part of corporate donations -

Considering the tax and marketing advantages available, I would think the figure would be higher from corporations

The personal donations include the very big ones. Typically the largest single donation is ~ £100m, with a few hundred of £1m+.

Lottery funding comes in the "Grants" line mostly, but a little is in the corporates line.

 

[Brovion]

I actually do pay to a donkey sanctuary!!

That's great, well done. However I don't want Taxpayers' money being used to support them, I would consider that to be a colossal misuse of OUR money.

 

[DavidinSouthampton]

Would you rather it was a govt department? something like social services? I think they get far better support from the charity organisations than they ever would from a govt organisation.

Would all the people who volunteer to work in the charities become employees of a govt department? I just don't see how it would deliver the same quality of personal care and attention.

I take your point. I just have a gut feeling that, on principle, it should be government funded, or at least heavily supported, and with no expense spared.

 

[CheeseRolls]

that is quite staggering.

Personal donations account for about £300 per person per year ( I think).
I certainly don't contribute £1500 for my family.


Where does the Lottery feature in the above list?
I assume that is part of corporate donations -

Considering the tax and marketing advantages available, I would think the figure would be higher from corporations

If you are a top rate tax payer and let's be honest the threshold is not that high these days, the tax relief on charitable giving at 40% adds up to a tidy sum.
Also worth considering that anyone dying with no relatives that they actually like, will more often than not choose charity over the state.
Finally consider the number of vanity projects that somehow qualify as charities.

 

[Guy Fawkes]

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.

Haven't read the whole thread but i would assume that this may have already been mentioned but:

* The UK national debt is currently growing by £5,170 per second and stands at £1,783,461,090,000 (approximately at time of posting)
* The Government has to pay 8% of all tax collected into it's coffers to just service this enormous debt
* The Government is already running at a deficit, and will do for many years to come now plans to run at a surplus have been shelved by the Tories following Brexit
* Borrowing more to pay for running charities is just adding to this public debt and means that in years to come we will struggle to fund our services properly and every £ added to this debt is a £ less that the future generations will have to pay for their services (NHS,Police, Fire, Social services, etc which should be far more important uses of public money)

If they are being funded now through private means, why change it?

 

[ThePompousPaladin]

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!

It's just 2 successive right wing governments in a row in my opinion, a left wing one would get back some of the more essential local services, taking pressure off many charities. Probably would only need one term to correct the course to a more middle ground.

 

[ThePompousPaladin]

...
Finally consider the number of vanity projects that somehow qualify as charities.

But think of the albanian donkeys!

 

[drew]

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.

So if we didn't give to charity and that money was replaced by money from government funds, how do you think the government will raise those funds?

 

[hitony]

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.

You are wrong, pay 99p in the £ and nothing will change, just many more charities will appear wanting a slice of the "State Cake" I have not read any further than this so I don't know if others have thought the same.

 

[Sussex Nomad]

You are wrong, pay 99p in the £ and nothing will change, just many more charities will appear wanting a slice of the "State Cake" I have not read any further than this so I don't know if others have thought the same.

Where did you pluck 96p from?

 

[studio150]

Please feel free to tell me the errors of my way.

In an answer to

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.

You responded with

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.


How do we all pay equally?

If I earn £10000 a year how much tax do I pay
If I earn £50000 a year how much tax do I pay

So what is the equal distribution even in monetary amount or a ratio to earnings

Same with VAT as no doubt higher earners save more rather than buying goods subject to VAT

 

[maltaseagull]

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.

Fair point but then you have all the animal and wildlife charities. Plus 3rd world issues. It's never ending!

For example just tonight I have seen an advert for £5 a month to protect a Tiger or £3 for a thermal blanket for a Syrian child.
How do you choose?

 

[maltaseagull]

It's just 2 successive right wing governments in a row in my opinion, a left wing one would get back some of the more essential local services, taking pressure off many charities. Probably would only need one term to correct the course to a more middle ground.

And how this would be funded?