Am I being too generous ? Or am I too tight ?

Charity Giving

41 to 60 of 169 messages
30/01/2013 at 10:47

I always find the my tax money isn't spent on me arguments to be laughable. Even had the classic 'I have no kids so why should I fund schools?' one a few times.

It does make me wonder if these people really think a completely uneducated under class, or increase and spread of disease due to the poor being unable to afford treatment, or the crime surge due to people being desperate because they are starving is worth it to save paying tax!

It really does baffle the mind. I'd say there's a better argument that we don't pay enough tax if we as a society require charity work to cover things that the State really should provide.

cougie    pirate
30/01/2013 at 11:17
It does sound like we've lived through a golden period with early retirement ages and fairly high standards of living. But now the national credit card bill has just arrived.
Nurse Ratched    pirate
30/01/2013 at 11:41
Colin McLaughlin wrote (see
.................the courts service, the probation service, jails, the police, schools and the provision of education,............Loads of things I shouldn't have to pay towards, and would choose not to pay towards were I given an option, I pay towards, extremely charitably. Good of me.

I gave about 12 doses of blood in my younger days but then stopped giving because I felt I should be paid for it. (Yes, I know it would attract the wrong sort of people, but nonetheless the NHS pays for everything else. Why should they get blood free?)

So how would you fund those services?

And would you be prepared to pay for blood should you ever need a transfusion?

30/01/2013 at 11:55

Some uncharitable comments on this thread I notice.

30/01/2013 at 13:02

"the courts service, the probation service, jails, the police, schools and the provision of education"   I never realised these were charities, my understanding is they are public services

30/01/2013 at 13:09

To the OP - you're very generous individual.

Thanks for the heads up Rickster, I'd suspected that UNICEF (are we naming names on here ?)  weren't ringing me to be friendly after I'd given them a fiver during a televised pro-celeb tv match.  A few seconds into the conversation and I'd rung off, but I must say, they're a tenacious bunch, ringing me constantly over Christmas

30/01/2013 at 13:10

Oh, and giving blood?  Supported by my company, so i get an hour off work and a cuppa.  Win/win as far as I'm concerned

30/01/2013 at 13:33
Eggyh73 wrote (see)

It really does baffle the mind. I'd say there's a better argument that we don't pay enough tax if we as a society require charity work to cover things that the State really should provide.

Stupid argument! I think tax should be for the essentials (Basic health, pensioner welfare etc) whereas Charity is for the "nice to have" and I see a lot of things receiving the benefit of my tax that I would consider nice to have but not essential

30/01/2013 at 13:59

There's a balance, isn't there?

The idea that "I pay my taxes, so everything should be provided by the state" is ridiculous... our taxes would need to be vasty higher, and there are things which simply shouldn't be provided (or, by implication, controlled by the state).

There is a huge place for charity and altruism in society, and an obligation for everyone to do 'their bit', within their capabilities and means (which doesn't always mean giving money, it could be volunteering for example).

On the flip side, I think there are certain areas where charity is relied on too heavily, where perhaps state funding should play a bigger part.... I'm thinking of things like Hospices as just one example.

But when taxpayer's money is spread as thinly as it is currently, those things would still need us to pay more tax than we do currently.

 

30/01/2013 at 14:02

Humanitarian needs are "nice to have"! The majority of charity work is based on providing essential items or research.

Unless your idea of essential is treating the disabled like sub-humans, abandoning those with long term generative diseases and trying to provide basic humanitarian aid to those in impoverished countries often left to suffer after years of colonial abuse.

Those that complain about tax more often than not are those in the best position to contribute to it. The I have mine and screw everybody else mindset.

Edited: 30/01/2013 at 14:03
30/01/2013 at 15:13
EKGO wrote (see)
Eggyh73 wrote (see)

It really does baffle the mind. I'd say there's a better argument that we don't pay enough tax if we as a society require charity work to cover things that the State really should provide.

Stupid argument! I think tax should be for the essentials (Basic health, pensioner welfare etc) whereas Charity is for the "nice to have" and I see a lot of things receiving the benefit of my tax that I would consider nice to have but not essential

 

Oh please! The Trussell Trust is a charity that gives out food parcels to people who can't afford to eat. What part of needing a charity to provide you with the food you need to survive is a "nice to have?"

 

Edited: 30/01/2013 at 15:17
30/01/2013 at 15:44

There is ample provision for Food and shelter in the welfare state, they are essentials so people should have them, and if they are legitimate in their need they will get them.

I said that some charity stuff is "nice to have" and stand by that, I didn't state anything in particular, but you've chosen to bring humanitarian needs into the discussion, does it enhance your fragile argument? as it serves no other purpose.

Finally going back to Libertarian society, I don't see that you fully understand it, but by your logic if you're willing to give a percentage of your wage to charity over and above your tax (do you?) and I'm not, then in your world maybe it's working for both of us, carry on please.

30/01/2013 at 15:55
EKGO wrote (see)

There is ample provision for Food and shelter in the welfare state, they are essentials so people should have them, and if they are legitimate in their need they will get them.

 

Well clearly there isn't otherwise there wouldn't be any need for charities to provide them. I know there are a few scroungers that milk the state for all it's worth but the majority of people on benefits and, let's be honest even some people in work, find it a struggle. All they need is one unexpected bill and the money can run out.

It isn't so much the lack of empathy that bothers me here, it's the lack of actual understanding of what life is like for some people.  

Even if you take charities which do provide humanitarian aid out of the equation, what other charites do you think provide "nice to haves" - Age Concern? The RNIB? Macmillan? MIND? Really, I'd love to know.

 

Edited: 30/01/2013 at 16:00
30/01/2013 at 15:58

So if you have no context to you comment, why post? Just some good old Daily Mail reader type scroungers issue is it? I chose humanitarian need as that is what the majority of charities aim to provide.

I understand libertarian society fully and it's laughable. Just to point out we don't live in a libertarian society. If the welfare state provides ample food and shelter why do charity run homeless shelters exist? Why are there soup kitchens for the homeless in many of the UK's cities?

30/01/2013 at 16:01
Screamapillar wrote (see)
EKGO wrote (see)

There is ample provision for Food and shelter in the welfare state, they are essentials so people should have them, and if they are legitimate in their need they will get them.

 

Well clearly there isn't otherwise there wouldn't be any need for charities to provide them. I know there are a few scroungers that milk the state for all it's worth but the majority of people on benefits and, let's be honest even some people in work, find it a struggle. All they need is one unexpected bill and the money can run out.

 

Screamapillar I have to agree with you, probably most of us on here are comfortable, jobs and reasonable salaries and have been all of our lives, main expense running shoes and race entries, but lose that job and you can see how easy it is to be quickly in trouble. Bureaucracy being what it is many of us might find we couldn't get state help until every last scrap of your assets has gone so help from any quarter would be welcome

30/01/2013 at 16:09

I'd be interested to know, so....

Hands up those who make a regular charitable donation, over and above the contribution the govenment makes from their tax?  I don't want to know how much, or who it is to, just how many do.

 

30/01/2013 at 16:15
Screamapillar wrote (see)
 I know there are a few scroungers that milk the state for all it's worth but the majority of people on benefits and, let's be honest even some people in work, find it a struggle. All they need is one unexpected bill and the money can run out.

There are many more than a few who milk this country, and if anyone wants to call those people "nice to have" I'd like to see it. The pity is people out of work are getting what we class as subsistence money but it is way too attractive, take it away and make them self-reliant it's the biggest favour you'll ever do for them. I would like to see zero child benefit for anyone out of work, that will at least stop them breeding like rabbits to earn more money for their lousy tattoo, animal and child collections. Grow up and see it for yourselves

30/01/2013 at 16:15

i give nothing im afraid wilkie but i do religously give blood every time im asked 

thats my good deed for the time being!

30/01/2013 at 16:16

Wilkie I don't give to charity but I do pay tax at the higher rate which is basically the same, and is basically unfair

30/01/2013 at 16:28
Nick Windsor 4 wrote (see)
Screamapillar wrote (see)
 I know there are a few scroungers that milk the state for all it's worth but the majority of people on benefits and, let's be honest even some people in work, find it a struggle. All they need is one unexpected bill and the money can run out.

There are many more than a few who milk this country, and if anyone wants to call those people "nice to have" I'd like to see it. The pity is people out of work are getting what we class as subsistence money but it is way too attractive, take it away and make them self-reliant it's the biggest favour you'll ever do for them. I would like to see zero child benefit for anyone out of work, that will at least stop them breeding like rabbits to earn more money for their lousy tattoo, animal and child collections. Grow up and see it for yourselves

How lovely it must be up there in your ivory tower. Do you have the Daily Mail delivered by the way or do you descend once in a while to visit the newsagents?

BTW who do you think has done this country's economy more damage - benefit scroungers or greedy bankers? Just curious.

Edited: 30/01/2013 at 16:28
41 to 60 of 169 messages
Previously bookmarked threads are now visible in "Followed Threads". You can also manage notifications on these threads from the "Forum Settings" section of your profile settings page to prevent being sent an email when a reply is made.
Forum Jump  

RW competitions

RW Forums