MSE News: Plan for charity giving at ATMs and tills

brewerdave

In common with most of the previous posters - I'm appalled !!!! If I want to give to a "charity" I will do so in my own time. My wife wastes £5 a week on the Lottery and since we never win,I regard this as charitable giving (wonder if I can get tax relief -LOL)

I_luv_cats

how much will the charities get after admin costs blah blah ??? after hearing about how little some charities get after chugger firms take a cut or / and commission, I`m put off by the idea!

Ken68

We do need a new WAY of contributing to charity. Those 'cruelty to children' charity on tv at this time, just too harsh, have to switch off or over. And £2 a month for Water for the Third World. Can't help thinking if I help dig a well, why can't they do it themselves.
So what with tearful pleas and not very useful projects and never really sure if the money isn't being purloined, the end result is for me giving less.
Tell a lie, gave 62pence yesterday to the local brass band. It didn't work, they carried on playing.

Butterfly_Brain

We already give to charity to third world countries through taxes anyway; so why should we pay anymore to warlords and charities who pocket a large chunk of the donations to pay staff a huge wage.

I too turn the tv over when the begging adverts come on
As for Water Aid - I pay over £500 a year for bloody water they can come and dig me a well for £24 a year

WhiteHorse

Paul_Herring wrote: »

Tax is obligitory. This isn't (at least not yet.) [...] The fact that there's nothing said about you cannot say 'stop bugging me about this' every time you use your card is worrying to me.

Oh? Wait until you are publicly asked for a donation and want to refuse in front of a shop full of people. Or what if you are told that all your workmates will find out that you declined to 'donate'?

No pressure? No intimidation? Entirely voluntary?

A 'voluntary' donation made under duress is not voluntary.

Blair tried it too. In the NuLabour version of this scheme, it was suggested that you would be opted in, unless you specifically opted out. Money would be taken at source, not when you used a card. It was also made quite clear that you would be put under pressure not to opt out.

It's taxation all right.

WhiteHorse

Butterfly_Brain wrote: »

We already give to charity to third world countries through taxes anyway; so why should we pay anymore to warlords and charities who pocket a large chunk of the donations to pay staff a huge wage.

Exactly.

India and Pakistan both receive staggering amounts of foreign aid - and run nuclear weapons programs.

WhiteHorse

LittleMax wrote: »

Taxation? This is definitely not taxation - the whole point of taxation is that everyone pays according to their ability, and not according to how altruistic they feel when they are withdrawing cash.

Which is why monstrously rich companies pay so little ... ?

walkon

This is all wrong. Badgering people for charity money is not acceptable in any way.

I get sick and tired when i go to do my shopping, there is some charity at the door pestering customers to donate.

We are living in tough times and when most people don't have much money to spend anyway, the government can't expect this.

rosielx

I won't be donating money to charity at an ATM. I buy loads of my childrens toys from charity shops and also give all old toys and clothing to our local shops. There have been so many charity scams that I only deal with them directly

Paul_Herring

Ken68 wrote: »

We do need a new WAY of contributing to charity.

To be brutally honest, no we don't. We need the government to stop giving 'charities' money, reduce the tax we pay by the same amount, and allow us to *choose* where we give money to.

As I intimated earlier, I object to the fact that some of the tax I pay when I buy my tobacco goes towards funding ASH to lobby government and hector 20% of the population.

I object to the booze tax I pay being used to fund [STRIKE]quangos[/STRIKE] charities to tell me I'm drinking too much because I breach some arbitrary limit. (And the units limit per week *is* arbitrary - it has no basis in science/statistics/any reputable sphere of either - it was a number plucked at random.)

This has to stop.

WhiteHorse wrote: »

Oh? Wait until you are publicly asked for a donation and want to refuse in front of a shop full of people. Or what if you are told that all your workmates will find out that you declined to 'donate'?

Personally I couldn't care less what someone thinks about me when in a shop/work on this subject. If they're that outraged that I won't donate 3p to charity on my 3.97p purchase at the local quid shop to call me up on it, then I'll explain that I've already given thousands to charity (above arguments.)

No pressure? No intimidation? Entirely voluntary?

.. though I do realise that others will feel the pressure you mention. Sadly.

It's taxation all right.

No. It's not. Peer-pressure to do something doesn't make it legal to enforce that behaviour.

Close, but no.

Though I wouldn't put it past Richard Murphy to include this in one of his discredited outpourings.