We give billions to foreign aid and some of it I can understand, some I can't. If they wanted to take my pound to send it to causes abroad, again they can get stuffed.
Charity begins at home.
Yeah - some local charites are starved of funds - bet they wont get it it'll be the ballet and opera or third world . Im not giving a penny and blow this round up a pound lark .I'll choose who i donate to when and where - Its a Contrick
Again, you can choose the option of 'No'. Theres no obligation to anybody to donate to any charity but some people will, thats not a bad thing.
You've already decided this money will be going to some evil ''pen pusher'' whos going to buy Mugabi a new Limo....Would you feel better about it if you knew for a fact it would be going to some kittens?
Yes but only if it went to animals - but it wont so they can have nothing not a penny more .I dont want hassling at a cashpoint about charity as I go there to get money for myself only .Its just annoying.
not everyone can afford to give a pound. Charity is regressive- those who are more hard-up are donating much more of their income than those who aren't. So yeah should be an option to say no.
True. But if we all used that as an excuse to not donate where would we be?
I'm not against donating, it's just i'd rather see money go to those who are really need it and are struggling than those who just sit on the money and throw it around on admin.
The National Lottery is the best way to give small amounts already anyway and you can win something as well.We were supposed to have a general choice of charities / box to be ticked etc - in the Lottery but this was quietly forgotten and the government has some say on the direction the money heads .Are they now trying for a second jackpot
Yes but only if it went to animals - but it wont so they can have nothing not a penny more .I dont want hassling at a cashpoint about charity as I go there to get money for myself only .Its just annoying.
It's not hassling, no more than asking if you want a receipt is hassling. Alls you have to do is press 'No'.
And whats with this ''only if it went to animals''??? Sorry thats another thread altogether, I'd be best to avoid that one I think.
How anyone can be against this idea is beyond me. What's the problem? Someone politician gets to pick the charity? I don't think the Govt would put this into law and only have 1 charity get all the money, I'd assume you could either choose on screen or money would be split between a number of charities.
Besides your not going to be forced to give a donation when taking money out. All you have to do is press 'No' when it asks if you want to donate
So funding is reduced for charitable organisations, and then the government asks us to give more. Maybe they do have a conscience
More seriously currently the less money you have the higher proportion of your income you give to charity. This model will just result in people with less money giving a little bit more and will barely dent those who are a lot better off and do little (or nothing) to aid charitable organisations. That is what they need to target. Or introduce a fresh range of tax breaks for donations to encourage those better off to donate. But why focus on the rich?
What a ridiculous idea. People in low tax countries often do this - the UK is not a low tax country.
When the government take ~25% of what I earn, soon to be 20% on what I spend on certain items, £1500 for council tax and then 40%+ on the fuel I use to travel to earn money to pay those taxes - they can go whistle.
Then above all, in order to pay these every increasing taxes and bills - I'm finding myself working longer with less free time for myself, certainly no free time for voluntary work.
If they want us to be more involved, then they need to learn how to use our tax better - or cut the taxes and let us decide.
It's okay if you can choose the charity. Ebay do this at checkout, you can donate a £1 to your chosen charity.
The cynic in me wonders if the government want us to give more to charity so they can cut more money to local groups in the hope that charitable donations will go toward making up the difference.
I won't be donating any money at cashpoints. I prefer to give my money to who I choose when I want to, not be endlessly asked each time I use a machine.
Comments
This.
Let Francis Maude and George Osborne stop using off shoring tax havens to avoid tax, then I might listen. Hypocrites.
True. But if we all used that as an excuse to not donate where would we be?
Ok.
Yeah -
Yes but only if it went to animals - but it wont so they can have nothing not a penny more .I dont want hassling at a cashpoint about charity as I go there to get money for myself only .Its just annoying.
I'm not against donating, it's just i'd rather see money go to those who are really need it and are struggling than those who just sit on the money and throw it around on admin.
It's not hassling, no more than asking if you want a receipt is hassling. Alls you have to do is press 'No'.
And whats with this ''only if it went to animals''???
before it becomes opt out, and it automatically takes a
contribution unless you say no.
Besides your not going to be forced to give a donation when taking money out. All you have to do is press 'No' when it asks if you want to donate
If those scum politicians spent tax money on important things instead of invading other countries there would be no need for charity.
Stupid idea for stupid people.
Stupid people voted for stupid politicians.
More seriously currently the less money you have the higher proportion of your income you give to charity. This model will just result in people with less money giving a little bit more and will barely dent those who are a lot better off and do little (or nothing) to aid charitable organisations. That is what they need to target. Or introduce a fresh range of tax breaks for donations to encourage those better off to donate. But why focus on the rich?
Leaner, fitter, more effective charities ?
When the government take ~25% of what I earn, soon to be 20% on what I spend on certain items, £1500 for council tax and then 40%+ on the fuel I use to travel to earn money to pay those taxes - they can go whistle.
Then above all, in order to pay these every increasing taxes and bills - I'm finding myself working longer with less free time for myself, certainly no free time for voluntary work.
If they want us to be more involved, then they need to learn how to use our tax better - or cut the taxes and let us decide.
They can't have both, certainly not from me.
The cynic in me wonders if the government want us to give more to charity so they can cut more money to local groups in the hope that charitable donations will go toward making up the difference.
yer sure mayby?
This seems like a really ill thought out plan/story.. I mean really, they would like everyone to donate 1% of the income.
I don't use the phrase 'nanny state' often, but my God the vibes from this are dreadful, the government should keep their beak out.
Example you spend £5.80 on your card, you can round it up to £6 quid and the charity get 20p.
The issue I have is I am selective with who i donate to. I like to decide who benefits.