Charity - defined as the practice of benevolent giving and caring
The British nation has always been big on charity. For a nation of high taxes, in the main most people still give to charity on a regular basis.
In 2007/8 charity donations peaked at £11.3 billion from the British public. Although it came down a bit in 2008/9 (still £10.6 billion) the figure for 2010 is expected to be close to the peak, and in 2011 it will probably be even higher.
I'm experiencing the generosity of my fellow citizens right now as I raise funds via a sponsored walk.
Of course, not everyone has been able to donate, but they have wished me well with the event and their good wishes are invaluable too. Indeed there are many valid reasons why people can't donate, such as:-
- Can't afford to - times are difficult and everyone's disposable income varies
- Recently donated to something else (as I said, we're a charitable bunch so there will always be someone you know fundraising)
- Against their beliefs/principles - your charity choice may not be everyone's cup of tea (e.g. not sure I'd donate if someone wanted to raise funds to build a statue of Gordon Brown!)
Yep, okay there might be the odd one who won't offer a reason, snapping out a vitriolic "no" then returning to nibbling on a piece of coal. Fair enough, totally acceptable.
However, if they then go on to recite a bitter Socialist Worker diatribe claiming the State should provide everything and that by raising funds for a charity just reinforces the Government's position of avoiding paying for stuff then, sorry, that is not on.
To start with, such a statement is either a) case of turrets where all they can spout is garbage b) they like the sound of their own voice but still only speak garbage c) they've heard/read someone else's view which happens to be garbage but it had some big words in itd) it's how they were brought up (religious/social/racial filter) e) they have been unsuccessful in a fundraising event due to their low popularity and this has left them embittered.
Whatever the reason behind such a statement it is actually similar to the filtered/blinkered views of many people brought up within a religion. Is there a touch of irony here? Many religions have charitable acts as a key characteristic. Note: this is neither a pop at or a justification of religion, just a statement of fact
Unfortunately for anyone indulging in such a rant only proves what most people think - that they are an utter vacuous wanker (excuse my, ahem, French)
I would certainly not enter such a discussion without forethought, instead I prefer to mull it over and respond in a measured and thoughtful way instead of spewing up lunch as a quickfire response.
Firstly, I'd like to express the view that a mixture of private charitable functions and Government managed organisations are required. Government can't possibly manage or provide everything. The budget deficit has been building up for years - adding more burden on to the State is simply not feasible.
And if it were to be decided that Government could raise taxes specifically to take on the burden of charity, the cost would be a lot greater than the £11.3 Billion raised because administration by the state would be a lot greater (charities rely on volunteers or low-paid staff).
So, the cost would probably be between £20-30 billion, so that could by up to £1150 more tax per year for the income tax payers. and who would be worse hit? The poor. So, claiming the Government should deliver everything - what a daft thing to say!
So, what's good about money Charity instead of Government provision? well, here's some big hitters:-
- Participation by choice - if you don't want to donate to a particular charity that is your choice.
- A fairer "charity tax" - the poor don't have to donate, and the rich can donate as much as they like (whether they do or not is a different question)
- Fairer distribution - choose who you want funds to go to rather than a Government algorithm
- The virtue of participation - how good does it feel to volunteer at a charity shop, or to take part in a fundraiser? Flamin' great!
- Helps people achieve closure - if a loved one has died you want to help a particular cause and in doing so it helps you to move on whilst retaining a connection
- Localisation - donate locally and see the impact in your community
- Not subject to political whims!
- Helps causes that simply would not get Government funding - do you really think something like "make a wish" would ever get Government funding for what it does?
- Expertise in certain fields can develop without Government red-tape
- It enables companies to get involved in the community too
The RNLI is a great example of a charity that is doing a damn fine job without Government funding- in fact they refused it for some of the reasons I cited above.
Okay, so in a Utopian world Governments could write a cheque and life-threatening diseases and poverty would be cured, Hospitals would have every piece of equipment required, and all them brave people who thought for our freedom from Hitler and other Fundamentalists weren't actually wounded, traumatised or killed. But that's not the case. We have massive public debts, and inefficient bodies (such as the NHS) that continue to overburden the taxpayer - adding extra tax burden on the public or increasing debt won't solve anything.
So, I think in this brief article I've surmised why Charities should be kept separate from Government and why anyone who may have spat an opinion to the contrary has not thought it through and is a plonker.
I certainly think Charities could improve their own organisations through shared administration and other means, but they deliver more independently than they could via Government. And if it was a cheque-writing Government with no concept of accountability even less would be delivered.
