Maybe people shouldn't be so pathetic and spineless in that case. The RSPCA are there to raise money and if mailing people saying that some kittens are about to drown is the most effective way of raising money then what's the problem?
Nobody forces anyone to donate anything.
Because it upsets people to see it.
It does me. I do not want literature about cruelty and I certainly do not want it sent to try and bribe me into donating money.
Some people do actually find these mailings/phonecalls upsetting.
Maybe people shouldn't be so pathetic and spineless in that case. The RSPCA are there to raise money and if mailing people saying that some kittens are about to drown is the most effective way of raising money then what's the problem?
Nobody forces anyone to donate anything.
:rolleyes:
Surely the letter asking for money should be posted to the people not already donating money. I think doing things that way would be more effective
Most of the money goes on administration and managers. If it's a Third World charity, nearly all of the moeny will disappear in corruption and graft. Apart from the hard working volunteers who do it for nothing, most of the people involved in charities are concerned mainly with lining their own pockets and feathering their own nests. Don't toss your own hard earned cash into this kind of black hole - it might make you feel good, but it actually does very little in the way of good.
Above all, NEVER give to, or sign up with, the charity muggers who infest our high streets. They are getting £7 - £15 an hour from what you donate, and in many cases the charity named on their vests will get NOTHING from your direct debit donations for the first year.
If you really want to help someone, look at the people in your life - your friends and neighbours, and think about how you can directly help them (not just financially) if they are old, or poor, or in ill health or just simply need some kind of friendship or support. If you don't care about the people around you, the people close to you, it's pointless caring about the faceless millions on the TV screen. Do some good where you can make a difference. If you really care about something, get involved - don't donate.
Very good advice.
I think though some people give to charities to make them feel better about themselves, when all around them their families may need help in 'time' rather than money, or neighbours might need some help with shopping and things.
I'm a bit sceptical about it, especially about who gets to choose who gets the money. I can imagine a few well known charities will take the lions share and smaller more local charities will lose out.
I've also worked for a well known charity both voluntary and as paid staff and it was the worst and most corrupt place I've every worked. My husband also worked for the same charity but in a different area and his boss was arrested for stealing funds and another boss was in the paper for getting a free house paid for out of the charity.
The grant funding will be cut (it already is happening) and charities will either have to cut back on the services they provide - some of which fill very important gaps in public service for particularly vulnerable groups - or raise more money.
And this proposal could assist them in doing precisely that ...
You (and several others on the thread) are obviously convinced that this is a politically motivated stunt, and I don't expect for one moment that I can persuade you otherwise.
However, you also clearly believe that charities do good work for those in vulnerable groups, and they would clearly benefit from additional funds to do so, given that central grant funding is indeed being reduced.
That being the case, it seems pretty perverse to oppose a proposal that might help to replace that lost funding.
Politically I am not swayed either way, I do not trust any of them, but with the kneejerk actions of this coalition government, it makes you think that they have unearthed a complete Horlicks of a financial situation that the previous government have left, it begs the question, what have they done with the money?
This is simply a cover for the government so that when the public sector cuts take effect we can be blamed individually for the lack of services because we haven't donated enough to charity.
I'd like to know what godamn business it is of the governments to get involved in what I choose to give voluntarily to any charity - just as it's not their business to 'encourage' me to spend more time volunteering.
This is simply a means of wriggling out of the blame for the cutting of services currently provided by charities but funded from grants via local and central government.
The grant funding will be cut (it already is happening) and charities will either have to cut back on the services they provide - some of which fill very important gaps in public service for particularly vulnerable groups - or raise more money.
The government know that charitable donation is likely to be very hard hit during the recession particularly as they are throwing multiple thousands of public sector staff onto the dole very soon so they are terrified of being blamed when services to the very vulnerable start to dry up.
Their plan B is to nudge us all as hard as possible to fill the void from our own pockets to let them off the hook.
Do not believe it's about anything else.
i absolutely agree
Its similar to whats going on with the English Universities, find an alternative funding source and then cut government funding.
the charities wont be any better off. The reverse, probably.
It will be a bit annoying to get constant nag messages each time I want some cash. Because the Minister, and the radio presenter, repeatedly said it would be 'a few pennies' which of course is not true - cash machines don't do pennies, I will apply the rule to card purchases that if the amount nagged for is below 5p I will say yes, but otherwise refuse.
Obviously if it is a cash transaction in, say, a restaurant, any cash donated will be intercepted by staff.
I hope that on cash machines it is implemented as a choice option (ie. 'Do you require a) balance b)cash c)cash with receipt d) cash plus a donation to a charity of the government's or the bank's choice [which will of course include donations to Eton - a charity after all so why shouldn't the rich get their snout into your money] ) but I suspect that will not be naggy enough and an extra yes/no question will be asked.
You will all be recorded in the systems as either a mug or a skinflint. After a while mugs will be nagged for extra, and skinflints will be sent letters asking if they mind explaining exactly why they are such mean people.
It will be a bit annoying to get constant nag messages each time I want some cash. Because the Minister, and the radio presenter, repeatedly said it would be 'a few pennies' which of course is not true - cash machines don't do pennies, I will apply the rule to card purchases that if the amount nagged for is below 5p I will say yes, but otherwise refuse.
Obviously if it is a cash transaction in, say, a restaurant, any cash donated will be intercepted by staff.
I hope that on cash machines it is implemented as a choice option (ie. 'Do you require a) balance b)cash c)cash with receipt d) cash plus a donation to a charity of the government's or the bank's choice [which will of course include donations to Eton - a charity after all so why shouldn't the rich get their snout into your money] ) but I suspect that will not be naggy enough and an extra yes/no question will be asked.
You will all be recorded in the systems as either a mug or a skinflint. After a while mugs will be nagged for extra, and skinflints will be sent letters asking if they mind explaining exactly why they are such mean people.
I shall reply telling them I am a skinflint because I am skint. If they want me to donate they can give me more than £65 a week JSA, or give me a job working for the company that does the collection and handing out of money (you can bet it will go to a company to do all that and not be free).
The post by topaz10 was both condescending and presumptuous. He/she said that the other customers "just meekly agreed without asking who the money would go to. Presumably they felt too embarrassed to decline."
She cannot possibly know their reasons for agreeing to the donation, but nevertheless chose to belittle them, and (by implication) take pride in her own assertiveness.
I'm seriously unimpressed.
Being unimpressed is a serious way of life, my life is dominated by it.:D
It does me. I do not want literature about cruelty and I certainly do not want it sent to try and bribe me into donating money.
Some people do actually find these mailings/phonecalls upsetting.
Cancel your subscription then if you have one or put it in the bin. If enough people did that then maybe they would change tact.
I don't mean this to sound callous in any way but If this is an effective way of generating funds then I don't care if people find it upsetting. I put more value on the welfare of an animal as opposed to someone being upset for approximately 30 seconds.
This is simply a cover for the government so that when the public sector cuts take effect we can be blamed individually for the lack of services because we haven't donated enough to charity.
I'd like to know what godamn business it is of the governments to get involved in what I choose to give voluntarily to any charity - just as it's not their business to 'encourage' me to spend more time volunteering.
This is simply a means of wriggling out of the blame for the cutting of services currently provided by charities but funded from grants via local and central government.
The grant funding will be cut (it already is happening) and charities will either have to cut back on the services they provide - some of which fill very important gaps in public service for particularly vulnerable groups - or raise more money.
The government know that charitable donation is likely to be very hard hit during the recession particularly as they are throwing multiple thousands of public sector staff onto the dole very soon so they are terrified of being blamed when services to the very vulnerable start to dry up.
Their plan B is to nudge us all as hard as possible to fill the void from our own pockets to let them off the hook.
Do not believe it's about anything else.
But if grants are to be cut what's the problem with the government looking at alternative sources of funding? Would you rather they just made cuts and did nothing?
You choose whether to donate or not, nobody makes you.
The question must be who will decide which charities get such prominance. By any chance would it be government-backed so-called charities and/or friends of the government? Maybe organisations that agree to spend donations on certain government schemes will get prominance.
Will these charities be required to give a percentage to the bank? The government? Seems highly likely some charge will be made.
And what will be the impact on charities that lack such daily promotion. Surely very bad.
Such a scheme will also allow the government to claim they are "doing something" about social problems and if the money raised is not enough then it's the publics fault for not giving enough.
But if grants are to be cut what's the problem with the government looking at alternative sources of funding? Would you rather they just made cuts and did nothing?
You choose whether to donate or not, nobody makes you.
People do like their fluffy puppies and cute kids.
Important social investment that is not as "nice" will simply find itself underfunded if charity is the new public spending.
It's just human nature to give to those that tug on the heart the strongest. Income tax allows a slightly more considered approach to important social funding decisions.
But I suppose the well-to-do will be fine and that's all that matters to this government and it's supporters.
Maybe a donation scheme to round up transactions to the next £1 would be more popular if it was ring-fenced for additional resources to help with enforcing our borders and deporting illegal immigrants and foreign criminals.
Ever since I've been a kid, I've reacted very badly to being told what I should be doing. I'm not a bad person, I've given my time and money to the local community, but it will be on MY say-so, not the Government's.
The post by topaz10 was both condescending and presumptuous. He/she said that the other customers "just meekly agreed without asking who the money would go to. Presumably they felt too embarrassed to decline."
She cannot possibly know their reasons for agreeing to the donation, but nevertheless chose to belittle them, and (by implication) take pride in her own assertiveness.
I'm seriously unimpressed.
This coming from the FM who presumed that a person declining one particular charitable request was "mean spirited". Perhaps you should listen more carefully to what you say and heed those words yourself, if you aren't too busy climbing that ivory tower, of course.
Maybe a donation scheme to round up transactions to the next £1 would be more popular if it was ring-fenced for additional resources to help with enforcing our borders and deporting illegal immigrants and foreign criminals.
And this proposal could assist them in doing precisely that ...
You (and several others on the thread) are obviously convinced that this is a politically motivated stunt, and I don't expect for one moment that I can persuade you otherwise.
However, you also clearly believe that charities do good work for those in vulnerable groups, and they would clearly benefit from additional funds to do so, given that central grant funding is indeed being reduced.
That being the case, it seems pretty perverse to oppose a proposal that might help to replace that lost funding.
Of course it's a politically motivated stunt - we all know that. And it's not for 'additional' funds. It's to replace the funds they have actively taken the decision to remove.
I oppose it because the cuts themselves are politically motivated and this is a ruse to return us to Victorian britain where the poor and vulnerable are only taken care of it the philanthropic step in.
Shame on these Tory assholes for such a cynical stunt.
But if grants are to be cut what's the problem with the government looking at alternative sources of funding? Would you rather they just made cuts and did nothing?
You choose whether to donate or not, nobody makes you.
The government chooses whether our taxes fund social causes or defence spending - or paying off the deficit much faster than any other western nation.
Go back to your statement 'if grants are to be cut' - why do you accept that quite so readily. You've bought the spin. Shame on you and shame on this neoliberal government.
Welcome back Victorian philanthropy - so much for progress.
What a bunch of churlish, self-centred, petulant and miserable sods inhabit this forum.
This proposal is for a voluntary scheme of charitable giving, includes an opt-out option, and has the potential to raise substantial sums which would otherwise never be donated.
Of course it's inevitable that the charities chosen to benefit won't suit everyone (how could it be otherwise?), and some of the money will indeed be swallowed up by administrative costs (as is the case with all charities). So what? Some good is better than no good at all.
Trying to draw analogies with taxation is simply infantile. Paying taxes is mandatory, whereas charitable giving is by definition philanthropic and voluntary.
The bit in bold is total rubbish, I know of at least two (I am sure there are more) charity, that use 100% of the donated amount for a good cause. They get their admin costs from other sources.
Even the charities that take a percentage amount from the donation, the amount they take is astronomical...upwards of 10%.
Comments
Because it upsets people to see it.
It does me. I do not want literature about cruelty and I certainly do not want it sent to try and bribe me into donating money.
Some people do actually find these mailings/phonecalls upsetting.
Surely the letter asking for money should be posted to the people not already donating money. I think doing things that way would be more effective
Very good advice.
I think though some people give to charities to make them feel better about themselves, when all around them their families may need help in 'time' rather than money, or neighbours might need some help with shopping and things.
What about the bankers donating to charity or all those billionaires avoiding tax, with offshore accounts.
I think a troll is being donated to here and they are lapping it up, now that really is sad...........
I've also worked for a well known charity both voluntary and as paid staff and it was the worst and most corrupt place I've every worked. My husband also worked for the same charity but in a different area and his boss was arrested for stealing funds and another boss was in the paper for getting a free house paid for out of the charity.
And this proposal could assist them in doing precisely that ...
You (and several others on the thread) are obviously convinced that this is a politically motivated stunt, and I don't expect for one moment that I can persuade you otherwise.
However, you also clearly believe that charities do good work for those in vulnerable groups, and they would clearly benefit from additional funds to do so, given that central grant funding is indeed being reduced.
That being the case, it seems pretty perverse to oppose a proposal that might help to replace that lost funding.
i absolutely agree
Its similar to whats going on with the English Universities, find an alternative funding source and then cut government funding.
the charities wont be any better off. The reverse, probably.
Obviously if it is a cash transaction in, say, a restaurant, any cash donated will be intercepted by staff.
I hope that on cash machines it is implemented as a choice option (ie. 'Do you require a) balance b)cash c)cash with receipt d) cash plus a donation to a charity of the government's or the bank's choice [which will of course include donations to Eton - a charity after all so why shouldn't the rich get their snout into your money] ) but I suspect that will not be naggy enough and an extra yes/no question will be asked.
You will all be recorded in the systems as either a mug or a skinflint. After a while mugs will be nagged for extra, and skinflints will be sent letters asking if they mind explaining exactly why they are such mean people.
I shall reply telling them I am a skinflint because I am skint. If they want me to donate they can give me more than £65 a week JSA, or give me a job working for the company that does the collection and handing out of money (you can bet it will go to a company to do all that and not be free).
Being unimpressed is a serious way of life, my life is dominated by it.:D
Cancel your subscription then if you have one or put it in the bin. If enough people did that then maybe they would change tact.
I don't mean this to sound callous in any way but If this is an effective way of generating funds then I don't care if people find it upsetting. I put more value on the welfare of an animal as opposed to someone being upset for approximately 30 seconds.
But if grants are to be cut what's the problem with the government looking at alternative sources of funding? Would you rather they just made cuts and did nothing?
You choose whether to donate or not, nobody makes you.
Will these charities be required to give a percentage to the bank? The government? Seems highly likely some charge will be made.
And what will be the impact on charities that lack such daily promotion. Surely very bad.
Such a scheme will also allow the government to claim they are "doing something" about social problems and if the money raised is not enough then it's the publics fault for not giving enough.
It's a full-on sneaky swine idea.
People do like their fluffy puppies and cute kids.
Important social investment that is not as "nice" will simply find itself underfunded if charity is the new public spending.
It's just human nature to give to those that tug on the heart the strongest. Income tax allows a slightly more considered approach to important social funding decisions.
But I suppose the well-to-do will be fine and that's all that matters to this government and it's supporters.
Ever since I've been a kid, I've reacted very badly to being told what I should be doing. I'm not a bad person, I've given my time and money to the local community, but it will be on MY say-so, not the Government's.
Where do I sign lol
Of course it's a politically motivated stunt - we all know that. And it's not for 'additional' funds. It's to replace the funds they have actively taken the decision to remove.
I oppose it because the cuts themselves are politically motivated and this is a ruse to return us to Victorian britain where the poor and vulnerable are only taken care of it the philanthropic step in.
Shame on these Tory assholes for such a cynical stunt.
The government chooses whether our taxes fund social causes or defence spending - or paying off the deficit much faster than any other western nation.
Go back to your statement 'if grants are to be cut' - why do you accept that quite so readily. You've bought the spin. Shame on you and shame on this neoliberal government.
Welcome back Victorian philanthropy - so much for progress.
The bit in bold is total rubbish, I know of at least two (I am sure there are more) charity, that use 100% of the donated amount for a good cause. They get their admin costs from other sources.
Even the charities that take a percentage amount from the donation, the amount they take is astronomical...upwards of 10%.