Re: Emotional Taxation : Mon Nov 18, 2013 9:37 am  

I loathe the TV spectacle of Children in Need.

Nonetheless, with such a bunch of selfish, heartless 2@s in government, charities are even more necessary now than they should be in a "civilised" society.
Just because rich greedy baaastaaards are pushing us towards a feudal society is not a reason to abandon compassion.

Re: Emotional Taxation : Mon Nov 18, 2013 9:56 am  

"Charity" is a word that means love, compassion, caring for your fellow humans ... etc
"Charities" on the other hand, encompasses organisations spread across a wide spectrum that includes, at one end, genuine care for others and, at the other end, tax breaks for Eton College ... with a huge range of worthy/less-worthy causes (depending upon your opinion) in between.

There are charities where we all (or the majority of us) believe that they are vital causes, these should be funded by taxation according to the donors ability to pay.
The rest are matters of personal choice.

Re: Emotional Taxation : Mon Nov 18, 2013 9:56 am  

I have a couple of issues with "Charities", in so much as:

a. A large number of Charities sit on assests worth millions, yet are still allowed to fund raise. I think that they should only be allowed to hold a small 'emergency' fund then have to spend whatever they collect each year.

b. Smaller charities - loads of people seem to set themselves up as fundraising charities, then take a "directors" salary from the takings - or use the charity money to 'fund' their money making endeavours / stunts / chosen 'lifestyle' of do-gooding.

[DaveO]

Re: Emotional Taxation : Mon Nov 18, 2013 10:13 am  

shinymcshine wrote:

I know that there is a wider political and social agenda, but I still find it difficult to reconcile the situation of:

Cameron speaking about continued long term austerity in the UK then immediately pledging £50M for the disaster in the Philipines.

That is pretty easy to justify. It's simply that at this point in time their needs are greater than ours in simple terms.

Even rich countries need immediate help sometimes when a natural disaster occurs as the infrastructure can be shot to pieces.

What is harder to reconcile is giving overseas aid on an on-going basis to countries like India who have a space program!

I think the government are stopping doing this but I am sure there will be charities that still help in India's slums and in other areas. Perhaps the money would be better spent by the charities in lobbying the Indian government to look after its own better. (And of course the same could be said here).

Re: Emotional Taxation : Mon Nov 18, 2013 10:24 am  

shinymcshine wrote:

I have a couple of issues with "Charities", in so much as:

b. Smaller charities - loads of people seem to set themselves up as fundraising charities, then take a "directors" salary from the takings - or use the charity money to 'fund' their money making endeavours / stunts / chosen 'lifestyle' of do-gooding.

I'm in agreement with this. I increasingly seem to get confronted in supermarkets by people with buckets asking for money for this or that charity. I think I'm right in that to register as a charity only 20 percent or so of takings actually has to go to the cause so needless to say, none of these get anything from me.

Similarly there's the office 'good egg' usually a twentysomething male who wants me to donate to their just giving page for their latest trek across some challenging but exotic mountain climb. To them I usually point out that my charitable giving involves a monthly direct debit to wateraid and they should fund their own adventure holidays. However, I'm not terribly popular.

Re: Emotional Taxation : Mon Nov 18, 2013 10:27 am  

DaveO wrote:

That is pretty easy to justify. It's simply that at this point in time their needs are greater than ours in simple terms.

Even rich countries need immediate help sometimes when a natural disaster occurs as the infrastructure can be shot to pieces.

When you consider that Christchurch in New Zealand has a fifteen year rebuild plan after the 2011 earthquake(s) then you realise the truth of what you have written above.

Re: Emotional Taxation : Mon Nov 18, 2013 10:39 am  

But why should I have to put up with my local services being cut, restrictions on NHS spending etc, to pay for cyclical natural disaster relief that always happens somewhere else in the world ?

Yes, there is a big difference between a local library closing, and the devastation of an overseas settlement, but why do I end up losing out ?

Re: Emotional Taxation : Mon Nov 18, 2013 10:50 am  

shinymcshine wrote:

But why should I have to put up with my local services being cut, restrictions on NHS spending etc, to pay for cyclical natural disaster relief that always happens somewhere else in the world ?

Yes, there is a big difference between a local library closing, and the devastation of an overseas settlement, but why do I end up losing out ?

Because ultimately no single country in the world operates in isolation (well maybe Burma and Albania) and a huge natural disaster that wipes out a whole country's infrastructure is important to all of us.

[DaveO]

Re: Emotional Taxation : Mon Nov 18, 2013 11:04 am  

shinymcshine wrote:

But why should I have to put up with my local services being cut, restrictions on NHS spending etc, to pay for cyclical natural disaster relief that always happens somewhere else in the world ?

Yes, there is a big difference between a local library closing, and the devastation of an overseas settlement, but why do I end up losing out ?

Why do you think the two are linked? It's government policy to follow Austerity as the way to reduce the deficit. That is why you see what you do locally not because we give immediate relief when there is a natural disaster. The Labour opposition (and the Lib Dems before they were blinded by power) advocated a different approach.

As I said there is also a difference between the Overseas Aid budget which is an ongoing thing and disaster relief. I think you could argue giving overseas aid to some countries is no longer justified when we face austerity here but not disaster relief.

Even then I am not sure cutting the overseas aid budget is really justifiable. We are something like the 7th largest economy in the world. The fact we see the cuts we do at home is very much down to the choices our current government makes. If they hadn't sent a penny to the Philippines you would still lose out with the loss of your library. Guaranteed.

It is all part of the deliberate and ideologically driven policies of the current government to reduce the size of the state using the banking crises and resulting huge deficit as the excuse.

Re: Emotional Taxation : Mon Nov 18, 2013 11:07 am  

shinymcshine wrote:

But why should I ...

With respect, that's an opener that belongs in the Book of Uh-oh Prefaces.

Alongside "With respect..."