What To Cook Invidual Yorkshire Puddings...
Food & Drink5 mins ago
Charity Collections
19 Answers
Hardly a week goes by without a charity collection or appeal of one kind or another. I don't want to be mean or begrudge help, but should all these appeals be necessary in a civilised society? To mention a few:- blindness, cancer, heart disease, hospices, Lifeboats, NSPCC, Red Cross, animal rescue, etc. Is it right that providing care for social needs and diseases should depend on begging for money? What are other people's views about this and are there any practicable alternatives?
Answers
1 to 19 of 19
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Coldicote. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Unfortunately there will always be more good causes than Money. Even if the government taxed us 100% and we all lived hand to mouth in a commune and no one was ever corrupt and it was all a wonderful utopian dream, there still wouldn't be enough to go round. How much tax rise would you tolerate so charity could be less necessary?
There are two ways of helping charities - one is through money (including giving them clothes donations which they can sell), the other is giving them time.
The money that they need can come from donations or from tax (as R1 mentions). Without raising the tax threshold, you need to rely on the goodwill of people to help.
Bear in mind, that often the things that you donate would only be going to a landfill site anyway - better that a charity and someone on low income gets use out of it (in my opinion)
You could argue that in a civilized society, no one needs to earn more than (as an example) £1,000,000 a year and you could then tax people at 95% over that wage.
But that won't happen as these people have money and influence.
The money that they need can come from donations or from tax (as R1 mentions). Without raising the tax threshold, you need to rely on the goodwill of people to help.
Bear in mind, that often the things that you donate would only be going to a landfill site anyway - better that a charity and someone on low income gets use out of it (in my opinion)
You could argue that in a civilized society, no one needs to earn more than (as an example) £1,000,000 a year and you could then tax people at 95% over that wage.
But that won't happen as these people have money and influence.
That was tried vic, what happenned they all left the country, except Cliff. The trouble is wealth creators are needed however much soclialists dispise it. I'm not talking about trickle down here. People do get very rich building businesses but what is often ignored is that those businesses are the creators of jobs and taxation for the government. How will large businesses that all started from nothing somehow ever get created if we cap wealth creation? What would have happenneed if say Sainsbury started today he'd reach the £1m wall and bang no more growth governement criples the business. Mr Sainbury would still be well off but would never go in to employ thousands of people. So what you actully do Vic is punich the poor not the Rich. After a certain amount thej money irrelevant personally.
As I said in my post R1, it would never happen - but can you tell me how many people left the States in the 1930s when income tax was @ 94%?
The other alternative tax system is that the lowest paid worker in a job is paid a multiple of the highest earner - as an example, if a data input clerk earned a salary of £20,000 (using a 20 multiple), the highest paid earner in that company could earn no more than £400,000. If that person wanted to earn more, then they would have to pay lower salaried individuals a higher wage.
Neither of these will ever come in, but depending on your point of view, could be deemed 'fairer' than a system that allows a lot of high earners to be paying less tax than a cleaner earning £15000 a year!
The other alternative tax system is that the lowest paid worker in a job is paid a multiple of the highest earner - as an example, if a data input clerk earned a salary of £20,000 (using a 20 multiple), the highest paid earner in that company could earn no more than £400,000. If that person wanted to earn more, then they would have to pay lower salaried individuals a higher wage.
Neither of these will ever come in, but depending on your point of view, could be deemed 'fairer' than a system that allows a lot of high earners to be paying less tax than a cleaner earning £15000 a year!
dunno, the main argument is not about people leaving, it's about stiffling wealth creation. Socialists have never been able to grasp that you can't have money if no one produces anything. The wonderful Solcialist dream is fundementally flawed as it requires everyone to work for nothing for the same lo standard, ie the direct opposite to human nature.
yes but how will companies grow, do you not accept that if we limit salaries then companies will grow to a certain size and stop. Do you accept my point above that Sainsbury's would be much smaller under the £1m limit for earnings under the Vic regeme? the drivers for most are the system that allows you to become rich even you are driven by your envy of the same. If that's not there no one will try.
R1 - two things.
Firstly I said 'say 95%' - this was illustrative. It could be a figure anywhere between 40 and 95%. I don;t know where that figure is, minds better than mine can work it out.
Secondly, the alternative system I proposed (not my original idea), means that you can earn whatever you want - but you must reward your staff accordingly.
So let me ask you - do you think that we live in a civilised society where people can die on hospital beds because the NHS is underfunded, but others can have more money that they know what to do with?
Firstly I said 'say 95%' - this was illustrative. It could be a figure anywhere between 40 and 95%. I don;t know where that figure is, minds better than mine can work it out.
Secondly, the alternative system I proposed (not my original idea), means that you can earn whatever you want - but you must reward your staff accordingly.
So let me ask you - do you think that we live in a civilised society where people can die on hospital beds because the NHS is underfunded, but others can have more money that they know what to do with?
If I choose to give money I know where, at least some of it, is going.
I understand that (correct me if I'm wrong) the top rate of tax is going from 40% to 50% so the very well-off are talking of leaving the country.
If I was the chancellor (heaven forbid) I'd rather have 40% of something rather than 50% of nothing
I understand that (correct me if I'm wrong) the top rate of tax is going from 40% to 50% so the very well-off are talking of leaving the country.
If I was the chancellor (heaven forbid) I'd rather have 40% of something rather than 50% of nothing
I never donate to collection appeals and such. The collection agencies' costs often outweigh what the charity gets. I do however repond to phone begging etc. by saying that I will donate direct to the charity concerned, stipulating that I do not want to be on their mail list. I donate when and where I feel like, not when someone tells me to.
Helping with time is as above is always a good way to give.
Helping with time is as above is always a good way to give.
one observation i have noted, is that i have never really worked for an employer - over several years of employment in various places - as i do now, that seems to arrange almost weekly fund raising or charity type events.
we have £2 coffee mornings, £2 dress down fridays, raffles, csr sponsorship days, donate last hours salary of the year, donate here there everywhwre etc. we have employees around the globe sending sponsor weblinks to climb yet another mountain/cycle a long way/3 peaks/sail a long way/do something whacky (shave heads, grow beards etc etc)... the list goes on and on.
i have never previoulsy worked for a company that does so much. i'm not begrudiung anyone, but it does get tiresome and i am often inclined to delete the email before i read it.
we have £2 coffee mornings, £2 dress down fridays, raffles, csr sponsorship days, donate last hours salary of the year, donate here there everywhwre etc. we have employees around the globe sending sponsor weblinks to climb yet another mountain/cycle a long way/3 peaks/sail a long way/do something whacky (shave heads, grow beards etc etc)... the list goes on and on.
i have never previoulsy worked for a company that does so much. i'm not begrudiung anyone, but it does get tiresome and i am often inclined to delete the email before i read it.
Thanks everyone. I certainly didn't expect so many responses to my question. I agree with many of the comments, but can't help feeling reservations about the number of charities. The Charities Commission website:-
http://www.charity-commission.gov.uk/ indicates there are 159,694 main charities, and 21,003 subsidiary and group/constituent charities, totalling 180,697. I suggest people find out whatever information is available about specific causes they may wish to support and resist being overwhelmed by sheer weight of numbers.
http://www.charity-commission.gov.uk/ indicates there are 159,694 main charities, and 21,003 subsidiary and group/constituent charities, totalling 180,697. I suggest people find out whatever information is available about specific causes they may wish to support and resist being overwhelmed by sheer weight of numbers.
I do agree - there is a limit to what you can give.
I am a Rotarian, and I give time as well as money to that. I am a Mason, and we give generously to many charities. My mother in law died of Motor Neurone disease, so last year I ran my first ever 10k race in a french maids outfit and got them just under £1000. Later this year I am doing a 100 mile cycle ride around Norwich - for which I am trying to raise the awareness of a local charity. It is difficult to keep giving - especially when you get loads of requests.
I am a Rotarian, and I give time as well as money to that. I am a Mason, and we give generously to many charities. My mother in law died of Motor Neurone disease, so last year I ran my first ever 10k race in a french maids outfit and got them just under £1000. Later this year I am doing a 100 mile cycle ride around Norwich - for which I am trying to raise the awareness of a local charity. It is difficult to keep giving - especially when you get loads of requests.
-- answer removed --
1 to 19 of 19
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles15 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles20 mins ago
ChatterBank22 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles22 mins ago
