Save content
Have you found this content useful? Use the button above to save it to your profile.

Charity and old rope

18th Dec 2014
Save content
Have you found this content useful? Use the button above to save it to your profile.

Nearly Christmas so why not think about charity. Eh? Get that soft cozy glow, perhaps, says Simon Sweetman.

And I mean real charities not schools for the rich masquerading as charities thanks to Elizabethan laws which make education a charitable objective per se: which of course it was then as the public purse was not providing. But at this time of year even real charities, even the charities you love and subscribe to, can be a pain.

The letters pile through the door, the phone rings even more than usual and, if it is a relief not to be told about compensation from banks and the government giving away funds for home improvements, it is wearying to contend with the salespeople for charities, twisting the knife to make you feel guilty, and all madly competing with each other with their Christmas appeals and raffles: Enormous efforts going into what must be very small fractional responses. Every year in every way there are more demands: Will it be the donkey sanctuary or the rehabilitation of kidnapped penguins? Or perhaps charities dealing with poverty in this rich country?

But of course charities are now big business with branches in every high street and highly paid executives (almost big enough to compete with the do-everything-on-the-cheap operators like G4S and Serco, jacks of all trades and masters of none), but not quite big enough so the government can continue to dole out contracts for everything, hospitals, schools, prisons… to their favoured firms. Charities will look good until the last moment, but then…it’s Serco again!

This is in fact rolling us back to pre war days. At least, although hospitals have their own shakedowns, we are not expected to fund them entirely this way, nor to rely on the local millionaire for his small change.

So why not find a way to co-ordinate this enormous effort? Perhaps the state could collect and distribute the funds and now we have our individual statements about tax (well actually I never got one) we can lean on the state to make the right decisions (perhaps giving more to children than to animals?).

Tags:

You might also be interested in

Replies (7)

Please login or register to join the discussion.

avatar
By User deleted
18th Dec 2014 12:01

No thanks

Let the state make the decisions on where our charitable donations go? Seriously?

And I don't see why I should donate to children's charities and not to animal ones. There is plenty of state support for children - not enough perhaps, and not efficient enough - through child benefit, tax credits, taking them into care when their parents aren't fit to look after them etc. What state support is there for animals? [***] all. Animals are constantly mistreated and if it wasn't for the numerous small charities (mostly local) who bust a gut to save them then there would be a lot more suffering. In an ideal world there wouldn't be any suffering, human or animal, but this is far from being an ideal world so don't knock those who are trying to improve it.   

But thanks for the reminder that I need to sort out my Christmas donations. Not so I get a (oh so patronising) "soft cosy glow" but because I'm very aware of how lucky I am and how loved my pets are.

Thanks (0)
Replying to Tax Dragon:
By k743snx
18th Dec 2014 13:22

charity

Heartily concur, FG.

SS just likes to be provocative from time to time - don't rise to it.

Anyway, what would our grandparents/great-grandparents think of people sounding off about "poverty" while the latter are very possibly sitting behind hundreds of pounds worth of electronic kit?

 

Thanks (0)
avatar
By Wiganer Elaine
18th Dec 2014 12:01

The State?

If the State gets involved with collecting and distributing "charitable" donations it will soon become another stealth tax disguised as "charity" - rather like the NI contributions that were originally meant to directly fund the new "welfare state" founded by Nye Bevan, when that meant ill-health care, (not cosmetic/ lifestyle choices) unemployment benefit for those made unemployed from an actual job and state pensions for those who had paid sufficient contributions!

 "State" and "Charity" seems actually to be a contradiction in terms!

Thanks (0)
Locutus of Borg
By Locutus
19th Dec 2014 14:23

Simon, we already have that system

"So why not find a way to co-ordinate this enormous effort? Perhaps the state could collect and distribute the funds ... we can lean on the state to make the right decisions (perhaps giving more to children than to animals?"

Simon, we already have that system - it's called general taxation.

The State currently allocates 0.7% of National Income to overseas aid ... and a great deal more to other "social" causes such as the NHS and welfare.

As far as I'm concerned, the State already runs too much, so it can keep its grubby hands off personal donations.

If people like Flash decide they want to donate their hard earned cash to a local animal sanctury, rather than some childrens' charity then that's fine by me.  Every person is entitled to their own decisions about which charitable cause(s) to support and how much to donate.

If the State were to collect and dole out "pocket money" to charities every year, the main beneficiary charities would simply become lazy and more inefficient than they currently are, as they would have no need to justify their cause to the wider public.  Salaries and staff numbers would rise, pension contributions would become more generous and offices bigger.

In effect, that is the problem with many Government Departments - after many decades of getting guaranteed funds, they have become bloated in inefficient.  Under austerity, many Government Departments have had their budgets slashed and for the first time in a generation have been forced to become more efficient.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By User deleted
20th Dec 2014 19:19

What is wrong ...

... with private schools getting tax relief as a charity, they are taking a burden off the state after all.

As for the state managing the funds - WTF, the state can't organise a drinking session in a place where alcoholic beverages are brewed, there is already talk of the state taking over food banks - as Henry Enfield's Angry Frank would say, Oi, Sweetman, NO! 

EDIT - and the cash received for the school places provided is after all net of tax, in many (if not most) cases higher rate tax! If the income of private schools was to be taxable, there is a strong argument for the fees to be deductible on the payer, after all fees will rise as the schools need a fixed net income to survive. Why should people be taxed twice?

Thanks (0)
Replying to The Dullard:
By k743snx
20th Dec 2014 20:48

SS should perhaps pause and reflect before he knocks private schools, they do churn out quite a few Labour MP's after all, (including a certain PM not all that long ago).

Thanks (0)
avatar
By User deleted
31st Dec 2014 08:27

The State – are you serious?

Into the breach comrades ...

‘.. real charities not schools for the rich masquerading as charities ..’

Just supposing you had your way and shut down all these Public Schools tomorrow

Where would the money come from to cater for the influx into the alreday over-burdened state system?

Those sending their children to these types of school actually pay twice – once for the Public School fees and again by foregoing their entitlement to state education

Unless I am mistaken state education is in the hands of the state & has been for many years. If it is not fit for purpose in some areas then whose fault is it – possibly the state?

Rather than fix the problems with state education, the preferred approach seems to be deflection by all manner of spurious means, which in the main result in playing upon a perceived class divide. Whereas, in fact there are many from all backgrounds who give up a great deal in order to send their children to these institutions – so one really does need to move away from the snide swipes of political doctrine

It could be argued that the main ‘class’ divide in the UK is between Public/Private sector and predominantly concerns pensions (presumably you are a beneficiary of this system from your previous employment) – nevertheless, those in the private sector have to make provision for themselves as well as others in the public sector – pay twice!

Unfortunately this is an ongoing drain on the country & future generations and Public sector pensions should be placed on the same footing as the Private sector with immediate effect

Given a choice very many would far rather not spend the money on school fees and this could be very easily resolved by bringing state schools up to scratch - but this is in the hands of the Government & Unions so it is probably not going anywhere!

You might like to read about - Free schools prove more expensive than leading preps

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/education/article4308524.ece?shareToken=dc...

Could we be rather more constructive and display less of the politics of envy please as well as adopting a sense of proportion – what about PFI & the horrors of off balance sheet funding?

Thanks (0)