If There Was Any Doubt Of Labour's Anti...
News0 min ago
Faith, Hope? and Charity?
34 Answers
Just finished reading an interesting article about charitable status, tax relief on donations, and the charity commission.
I have long felt that the rules surrounding what constitutes a charity are more than a little nebulous.
http://
from the article
"Why is it reasonable for taxpayers, through gift aid, to subsidise attempts to convert them to beliefs which they might regard as immoral or obnoxious? What matters to society is the behaviours which are inspired by belief. Religion is capable of inspiring acts of charity, altruism and respect for other people, but it is equally capable of inspiring intolerance for other people, cruelty and violence."
Any thoughts or experience of the charitable sector from contributors here?
I have long felt that the rules surrounding what constitutes a charity are more than a little nebulous.
http://
from the article
"Why is it reasonable for taxpayers, through gift aid, to subsidise attempts to convert them to beliefs which they might regard as immoral or obnoxious? What matters to society is the behaviours which are inspired by belief. Religion is capable of inspiring acts of charity, altruism and respect for other people, but it is equally capable of inspiring intolerance for other people, cruelty and violence."
Any thoughts or experience of the charitable sector from contributors here?
Answers
It seems completely wrong that a politically/
22:36 Wed 12th Sep 2012
Unaccustomed as I am to darkening the hallowed halls of R&S ...
< peers around and checks quality of furnishings and fittings >
... I agree entirely with the premise that I (as a taxpayer) should not have to support religious organisations (or private schools) through any part of my tax being used to give them 'gift aid'.
It seems completely wrong that a politically/religiously motivated donor can give a dubious, quasi-religious charity (say) £50,000 and then I and other taxpayers (who may loathe and detest everything the religious charity espouses) have to cough up another £12,500 without any consultation at all.
In my view, it's just plain wrong - and I'm sorry that Mike's inane witterings, and failure to grasp a simple but serious point, have deflected this thread from a sensible discussion of an interesting point made by LazyGun.
< peers around and checks quality of furnishings and fittings >
... I agree entirely with the premise that I (as a taxpayer) should not have to support religious organisations (or private schools) through any part of my tax being used to give them 'gift aid'.
It seems completely wrong that a politically/religiously motivated donor can give a dubious, quasi-religious charity (say) £50,000 and then I and other taxpayers (who may loathe and detest everything the religious charity espouses) have to cough up another £12,500 without any consultation at all.
In my view, it's just plain wrong - and I'm sorry that Mike's inane witterings, and failure to grasp a simple but serious point, have deflected this thread from a sensible discussion of an interesting point made by LazyGun.
It seems completely wrong that a politically/religiously motivated donor can give a dubious, quasi-religious charity (say) £50,000 and then I and other taxpayers (who may loathe and detest everything the religious charity espouses) have to cough up another £12,500 without any consultation at all.
C'mon LG, best answer surely?
C'mon LG, best answer surely?
It's not the original donation - in a free society (which I hope we are) people can give money to whomsoever they please.
It's the 25% top-up from the general taxation fund which I object to - OK perhaps for the local donkey sanctuary, but less acceptable for (say) a proselytising religious foundation?
It's the 25% top-up from the general taxation fund which I object to - OK perhaps for the local donkey sanctuary, but less acceptable for (say) a proselytising religious foundation?
I think that sunny-dave forgets that were it not for the local Nazareth society Our Lady could not have ridden into Bethlehem to give birth to Our Blessed Lord, nor could our same Blessed Lord have ridden into Jerusalem without a sub from the local donkey branch. Mock ye not, you never know when you will suddenly become dependent on an ass!
I think people here are showing that there is some unease about the tax status of some charities, and what that represents to the general taxation pot.
There are some organisations that obtain charitable status that I would be uneasy about - Fee paying schools, Sham religious organisations like Scientology, even the orthodox religions. One recently formed charity in particular makes me uneasy - it promotes all sorts of complementary and alternative treatments for cancer treatment, and I dont think such an organisation should benefit from the status that being labelled a charity gives them. Coupled with that, they blatantly trade on the McMillan Cancer Charity, using similar branding.
http://www.yestolife.org.uk/
There are some organisations that obtain charitable status that I would be uneasy about - Fee paying schools, Sham religious organisations like Scientology, even the orthodox religions. One recently formed charity in particular makes me uneasy - it promotes all sorts of complementary and alternative treatments for cancer treatment, and I dont think such an organisation should benefit from the status that being labelled a charity gives them. Coupled with that, they blatantly trade on the McMillan Cancer Charity, using similar branding.
http://www.yestolife.org.uk/
I think that sunny-dave forgets that were it not for the local Nazareth society Our Lady could not have ridden into Bethlehem to give birth to Our Blessed Lord, nor could our same Blessed Lord have ridden into Jerusalem without a sub from the local donkey branch.
You present this as if it were fact?
You present this as if it were fact?
-- answer removed --
