Faith, Hope? and Charity?

[LazyGun]

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://www.politics.c...avour-from-the-taxman

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?

[Duncer]

Assumes Mrs Doyle voice, "Go on, go on, go on".

[mike11111]

Assuming Father Jack's voice, Feck, Feck you, Drink!

[sunny-dave]

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.

[naomi24]

Welcome, SB. :o)

I agree. Having said that, donations made via Gift Aid are a choice. However, whether the destination of the money 'gifted' is always fully explained - and understood - is another matter entirely.

[naomi24]

Sorry SD - not SB.

[Duncer]

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?

[sunny-dave]

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?

[Mick-Talbot]

BBC1 now, I thought when they said Britins most vocal atheist ...... I thought a certain poster from here was on telly ;0)

[naomi24]

It's obviously recorded. ;o)

[mike11111]

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!

[LazyGun]

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/

[Duncer]

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?

[sunny-dave]

Not come across that lot before LG - some very dodgy/dangerous stuff being peddled on their website.

Haven't got my links handy (on my other laptop) but I'd be fascinated to see their audited accounts on the Charity Commission website ...