Should we need to pay charity?

[Leekbrookgull]

Charity,Love it. YOU ARE BEING MUGGED.

 

[Leekbrookgull]

Only one charity for us The RBLI. Unlike your Local Charity Shop Manager,has a serious chance of not coming back home.

 

[ThePompousPaladin]

And how this would be funded?

The usual way with the left - tax.

 

[Guy Fawkes]

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.

The reason for the cuts by the right wing parties is because of the overspending by the left wing ones which seem to ave a devil may care attitude to finance with no serious thought given to how things should be paid for, thinking that money appears from thin air and debts can be ignored indefinitely and they will disappear or go away whilst those the money is owed to continue to fund your overspending lifestyle. That money has to come from somewhere. The coffers were left bare by Labour and the country had no reserves to call upon to help it through the financial crash of 2008, meaning the resulting damage to the economy was greater than it might otherwise have been had the Labour Government been able to save some money for a rainy day rather than spend money like it was going out of fashion

Everyone wants great services, but there has to be a point where reality and financial limitations come in to play rather than this attitude of "oh let someone else pay for my lifestyle because they have more money than me" rather than living within their means (which is harder work, it means saving for things rather than using easy credit and only getting something once affordable, it means making sacrifices, it means looking to self improve ones life by things like retraining or seeking higher paid work, etc rather than looking for everyone else to do everything for you and shrugging your own responsibilities and causes for your own situation (ie, do people really need to spend over £100 on headphones or buy a smart mobile phone on a monthly fee plan, etc))

If we want great services, how do we pay for them? We use 8% of all Government collected revenue to only service our national debt, keep adding to it and how long before this percentage goes up? meaning even less available to spend on services?

 

[ThePompousPaladin]

The reason for the cuts by the right wing parties is because of the overspending by the left wing ones which seem to ave a devil may care attitude to finance with no serious thought given to how things should be paid for, thinking that money appears from thin air and debts can be ignored indefinitely and they will disappear or go away whilst those the money is owed to continue to fund your overspending lifestyle. That money has to come from somewhere. The coffers were left bare by Labour and the country had no reserves to call upon to help it through the financial crash of 2008, meaning the resulting damage to the economy was greater than it might otherwise have been had the Labour Government been able to save some money for a rainy day rather than spend money like it was going out of fashion

Everyone wants great services, but there has to be a point where reality and financial limitations come in to play rather than this attitude of "oh let someone else pay for my lifestyle because they have more money than me" rather than living within their means (which is harder work, it means saving for things rather than using easy credit and only getting something once affordable, it means making sacrifices, it means looking to self improve ones life by things like retraining or seeking higher paid work, etc rather than looking for everyone else to do everything for you and shrugging your own responsibilities and causes for your own situation (ie, do people really need to spend over £100 on headphones or buy a smart mobile phone on a monthly fee plan, etc))

If we want great services, how do we pay for them? We use 8% of all Government collected revenue to only service our national debt, keep adding to it and how long before this percentage goes up? meaning even less available to spend on services?

I think successive governments have overspent, for many years, both left and right.

I believe this thread is more about what people consider to be essential services that are currently, being paid for by the charity sector. So although i agree with you that it's important for people to have personal responsibility, i think the headphones stuff is a bit of a derailment.

How to pay for it? You know - the usual way, tax... like many other 1st world countries do.

 

[Guy Fawkes]

The usual way with the left - tax.

So i got hit hard under the last Labour Government because i was unmarried, non home earner with no kids, private renting and on a lower than average income. I didn't qualify for any benefits of any sort and because of this added financial demands, I struggled to pay my bills some months as a result of multiple tax rises brought in by a Labour Government, pushing me closer to poverty.

Your answer to my predicament would be what, more benefits payments so i get help and more public spending to cover this increased cost to the country? Pushing more people towards this trap of low income and not being the right sort of voter to matter to the political party to think or care about?

These taxes push up the cost of living for everyone, including those they try to help, and can put more people into poverty as a result.

People should have a choice of where to spend their hard earned money and on what rather than have it taxed away and leaving them with little in terms of freedom of choice and the chance to save for things like a property of their own

 

[seagullhoop]

But its not just giving its also volunteering where the study showed more by the wealthier.

I wonder if the higher levels of the (even relatively) wealthy volunteering might be due to socioeconomic drivers. After all the low paid, need to work longer hours and might have less 'disposable' time to spend on involvement in the community. Factors such as irregular and unpredictable hours might prejudice people being able to commit to regular volunteering. (I coach every Thursday and Sunday - something that would be impossible if I could be called into work at any time).

Is the suggestion here that the middle and upper classes are simply more altruistic? Or maybe it's just easier to volunteer your time for free when you don't need to worry about money?

 

[ThePompousPaladin]

So i got hit hard under the last Labour Government because i was unmarried, non home earner with no kids, private renting and on a lower than average income. I didn't qualify for any benefits of any sort and because of this added financial demands, I struggled to pay my bills some months as a result of multiple tax rises brought in by a Labour Government, pushing me closer to poverty.

Your answer to my predicament would be what, more benefits payments so i get help and more public spending to cover this increased cost to the country? Pushing more people towards this trap of low income and not being the right sort of voter to matter to the political party to think or care about?

These taxes push up the cost of living for everyone, including those they try to help, and can put more people into poverty as a result.

People should have a choice of where to spend their hard earned money and on what rather than have it taxed away and leaving them with little in terms of freedom of choice and the chance to save for things like a property of their own

Sorry to hear about your predicament, i hope things are better for you now. I hope then and now, you would not be forced to use food banks etc.

My original comment is about increasing local services (presumably via local government) - not benefits. Thereby easing the stress on local charities.

To reply in a general sense to your comments about taxes:
Surely it would depend what/where the taxes were?

 

[Raleigh Chopper]

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.

Quite right, but it is very 2 sided, I would not want my money spent on a mangy cats home but needing to raise money to provide the local hospital with a machine to keep people alive is just wrong.
Personally I am sick of not being able to go anywhere without being approached or having a tin rattled under my nose, and I feel very guilty when I don't give or stop to answer questions as they do a magnificent job.
I have charities knocking regularly on my door in the evening in fact the Plymouth round table Christmas sledge has just gone down our road belting out carols and knocking on all the doors.
The problem I find is that there are so many charities that need my money that I don't know which ones to give it to, except animal charities I never give to them all the time there are humans needing help, especially children.

 

[Lord Bracknell]

There is massive Cancer research and treatment funding via the NHS,.... not sure what you are driving at? Do you think that the NHS just sits back and lets the various charities fund ALL research? Obviously the extra funds raised by the many charities is very very useful.

Indeed. As someone who has been living with cancer for a few years, all I would say is that the NHS has funded a massive amount of my treatment. I'm grateful, of course, but mainly to the people of earlier generations who campaigned for free medical treatment to be a right that everyone in Britain has.

 

[GoldWithFalmer]

Or maybe it's just easier to volunteer your time for free when you don't need to worry about money?

Yes,very much the case,yet there are hard working people out there with barley a penny to their name and struggling,yet they put others (rightly or wrongly) before themselves and ask for nothing in return..

These are the real selfless hero's.

 

[Guy Fawkes]

Sorry to hear about your predicament, i hope things are better for you now. I hope then and now, you would not be forced to use food banks etc.

My original comment is about increasing local services (presumably via local government) - not benefits. Thereby easing the stress on local charities.

To reply in a general sense to your comments about taxes:
Surely it would depend what/where the taxes were?

And again, how do you pay for those local services?

The only ways are through increased borrowing, adding to the national debt and making it harder to fund services in the future or by higher taxation, which pushes up the cost of living for the whole population and makes more people worse off and struggle to get by (and making more people reliant on the state for help or for things like food banks to get by)

Money should be used far better in the public sector than it is now (there is so much waste and poor management) and no incentive to buy the best value for money option because if they save £x, they still have to spend it by the end f the financial year or their budgets get cut. If they spend it just to use it (because they can't carry it over to the new financial year) they often get an increase year on year because i is believed that all that funding was needed.

And i was fine, (circumstances are now far better due to a lot of changes including finding better paid employment) I never needed a food bank because I cut my spending rather than spend on luxuries that people see as everyday goods nowadays and never went down the route of cheap credit which is a downward spiral to more debt (sadly too many went this route and are saddled with bad debt and struggling to get by now as they (ike the country) are held back by this debt and unable to spend as much as they like from their income because they have to service this debt

 

[vegster]

I actually donate more money to the 2 charities I support than have paid in to my company pension plan.

 

[Guy Fawkes]

I think successive governments have overspent, for many years, both left and right.

The history of the British national debt can be traced back to the reign of William III, who engaged a syndicate of City traders and merchants to offer for sale an issue of government debt, which evolved into the Bank of England. In 1815, at the end of the Napoleonic Wars, British government debt reached a peak of £1 billion (that was more than 200% of GDP). The current debt is around 90.6% of GDP and in the trillions.

I believe this thread is more about what people consider to be essential services that are currently, being paid for by the charity sector. So although i agree with you that it's important for people to have personal responsibility, i think the headphones stuff is a bit of a derailment.

Its the causes that leads to the need for charity, if someone lives a lavish lifestyle, should the state / charities fund that shortfall between their income and earnings and allow them to live a certain lifestyle when others struggle to get by but do so within their means.

Earnings and the cost of living should allow for people to be able to afford to live fairly comfortably, but if money if tight, tax cost of living increases and alike can push people over the edge. What is preferable is increasing wages driven by economic demand for labour being greater then supply and not state interference artificially creating this which can allow for more taxation but still maintain living standards.

Too many people have found their spending powers lessening and realise that they are never going to be able to afford things like housing now and rents are very expensive (basically paying someone else's mortgage repayments)

There was a recent reports published which showed something like 'that the under 40's are significantly far worse off financially that those who are only 10 years older than them (house price increases pricing you out, spending on services draining the public coffers and running up a huge national debt, etc)

Can't find the right link atm, but this is similar http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/thinking-man/11231796/If-youre-under-30-bad-luck.-Youre-screwed.html

How to pay for it? You know - the usual way, tax... like many other 1st world countries do.

There has to be a balance, remember that the more you tax, the less there is for individuals to spend and therefore shops and other goods and services selling businesses will suffer if people haven't the cash to spend.

The last recession was when people tightened their belts to pay their bills (loss of cheap credit) and many shops and other companies went bust as sales dipped (Woollies, Comet, etc)

It has to be responsible spending, paying for things that are needed with the future in mind and not on more frivolous things that can be funded other ways (trains franchised out means a Government income from the operator (corporation tax, etc) and staff paying taxes, rather than Government funding it and like so many other industries we once had under public control, running at a loss to the taxpayer, which basically eats into being able to spend it elsewhere like essential services (think all cars sold at a loss when under Government control)

It's also about balancing the Government and private sectors so the majority of those in work are working for private companies (which the pay taxes, etc) rather than state services which looses the state money and by having a very strong private sector, you don't have to have ridiculously high tax rates which stifle or kill off private business but also have the income from those sectors being enough to pay for your services properly without resorting to public borrowing (more like 70% private to 30% public rather than 50 / 50 or even more in favour of Public)

 

[wellquickwoody]

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.

As laudable as YOU may be, what a load of tosh your post is. Government should fund the essential, everything else should be personal choice.

As for the working class bit, can you give ANY evidence for your ridiculous assumption?

 

[wellquickwoody]

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.

I am going to assume you voted to leave the EU.

 

[ThePompousPaladin]

The history of the British national debt can be traced back to the reign of William III, who engaged a syndicate of City traders and merchants to offer for sale an issue of government debt, which evolved into the Bank of England. In 1815, at the end of the Napoleonic Wars, British government debt reached a peak of £1 billion (that was more than 200% of GDP). The current debt is around 90.6% of GDP and in the trillions.



Its the causes that leads to the need for charity, if someone lives a lavish lifestyle, should the state / charities fund that shortfall between their income and earnings and allow them to live a certain lifestyle when others struggle to get by but do so within their means.

Earnings and the cost of living should allow for people to be able to afford to live fairly comfortably, but if money if tight, tax cost of living increases and alike can push people over the edge. What is preferable is increasing wages driven by economic demand for labour being greater then supply and not state interference artificially creating this which can allow for more taxation but still maintain living standards.

Too many people have found their spending powers lessening and realise that they are never going to be able to afford things like housing now and rents are very expensive (basically paying someone else's mortgage repayments)

There was a recent reports published which showed something like 'that the under 40's are significantly far worse off financially that those who are only 10 years older than them (house price increases pricing you out, spending on services draining the public coffers and running up a huge national debt, etc)

Can't find the right link atm, but this is similar http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/thinking-man/11231796/If-youre-under-30-bad-luck.-Youre-screwed.html


There has to be a balance, remember that the more you tax, the less there is for individuals to spend and therefore shops and other goods and services selling businesses will suffer if people haven't the cash to spend.

The last recession was when people tightened their belts to pay their bills (loss of cheap credit) and many shops and other companies went bust as sales dipped (Woollies, Comet, etc)

It has to be responsible spending, paying for things that are needed with the future in mind and not on more frivolous things that can be funded other ways (trains franchised out means a Government income from the operator (corporation tax, etc) and staff paying taxes, rather than Government funding it and like so many other industries we once had under public control, running at a loss to the taxpayer, which basically eats into being able to spend it elsewhere like essential services (think all cars sold at a loss when under Government control)

It's also about balancing the Government and private sectors so the majority of those in work are working for private companies (which the pay taxes, etc) rather than state services which looses the state money and by having a very strong private sector, you don't have to have ridiculously high tax rates which stifle or kill off private business but also have the income from those sectors being enough to pay for your services properly without resorting to public borrowing (more like 70% private to 30% public rather than 50 / 50 or even more in favour of Public)

Thanks interesting stuff here.

I do believe we're talking on a tangent to each other though.
I'm not talking about benefits, i'm not talking about the taxpayer making up for lack of personal responsibility.

Some on this thread have spoken about health charities, air ambulances and so on, i've mentioned food banks - which i believe i read somewhere is mainly used by those in work.
I haven't used any specifics myself, but i think that's where the interest of this thread lies. What should be considered under the state's/council's remit and what shouldn't? (You appear to be off on a tangent about benefit claimants).

Personally i think there should be more resources dedicated towards homelessness/rehabilitation of criminals, if not for moral reasons then as a cost effective measure. The police and NHS services are stretched enough. We pay for it somewhere, might as well pay upfront and get some more taxpayers to share the load, as well as having a nicer/safer society to live in.

But i realise this one is contentious. Where is the line?

Again as for a general response to your comments about tax:
It depends who and what you tax, with such a political issue it's never spread 'fairly', or for that matter collected efficiently.
Didn't the current administration cut taxes?

 

[Sussex Nomad]

So i got hit hard under the last Labour Government because i was unmarried, non home earner with no kids, private renting and on a lower than average income.

A bit of cheer for this thread. I asked my girlfriend to marry me last night and she said yes

 

[Kalimantan Gull]

A bit of cheer for this thread. I asked my girlfriend to marry me last night and she said yes

Many congratulations

.
.
.

As someone who runs a charity, fund-raising ends up taking most of my time, even though I started it primarily to provide my expertise for rainforest conservation in Borneo. It would be very nice to have the government fund everything I want, but of course that's not realistic, not least because there is no real limit to what we could do if the money was there, so how do you put a cap on it. Therefore our job is to convince others that we are worth funding, and indeed that's a very competitive world. Most of our funding is grants, some from government (the US government is particularly supportive), some from corporate, some from other charities, some from zoos and some from campaigns to the public. Legacies are the big funder for many charities, but these take a while to nurture.

Domestic fund-raising is hard, because the UK is completely saturated with animal charities. There are five dedicated orangutan charities alone, not including mine, not to mention the big guys like WWF, the global animal welfare charities like WAP (WSPA) and IFAW, and then there are the pet sanctuaries. The latter are frustrating for the likes of me, as there are such HUGE amounts of money given to cats homes, dogs homes, and dare I say it, donkey sanctuaries, that a massive surplus of funds has developed which means many of them don't really need to raise any more money for decades, and yet they continue to receive millions annually, much of it in legacies. There is one cat charity with around £100m in surplus funds, and a donkey sanctuary with upwards of £50m. Charity laws make it very hard for them to dispose of it in any other way, so it continues to accrue interest. Nothing against these charities and the work they do, but it would be nice if it was shared around.

 

[Kalimantan Gull]

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.

You might find this an interesting watch: