Do the rich get richer by donating to charity?

lostinrates

There is a lot of confusion. Charitable giving is not a 'bad thing' imo when the recipient is genuine and using the money well.

The sad truth is many of the recipients are genuine and the money not as well used as donors would hope and also many, the type i believe is being targeted here are not genuine in the sense the man on the street thinks of charity.

I am so tempted to point out a real life example, but i cannot, i might think about how i can post a fake one based on a real one though.

DavidLaGuardia

CLAPTON wrote: »

do your own research


look at all those PAID people who try to persuade you to sign up for DD on the high street

look at the aftermath of the major disasters and see how much money actually goes to the poor

how many people do Oxfam employ

1. If a charity wants to pay money to raise money it is the same as any other business. Be it via media advertising or paying a marketing allowance as in incentive, they do so because it is profitable for them. It brings in another stream of revenue in addtion to voluntary work that would not otherwise be there.

2. I agree with that one. In amy cases charity relief is being leached by corrupt local officials

3. I don't think a charity employing lots of people is a socially bad thing. I do agree with you though if it is wasteful or excessive. If a charity is large enough though, it is in its own iunterests to get the most capable people at the top and to do this they pay a market rate for it.

DavidLaGuardia

CLAPTON wrote: »

look at all the house 'charities' ; look at their websites and try to find out what the incomes of the top people are e.g. look at Hyde House Trust (a major housing charity in the SE ) and try to find their accounts

come to your own conclusion

Below 2 years old, but appear not to pay directors, so not sure of your example

http://www.hyde-housing.co.uk/client_files/library/prefromance/FINAL%20-%20HYDE%20CHARITABLE%20TRUST%2031%20MARCH%202010.pdf

lostinrates

zagfles wrote: »

Up front - then I get a £11.25 rebate on my tax return. Direct subsidy to me from the taxman.

£11.25 to be pedantic
It illustrates that it is perfectly possible to get a tax rebate from a "contribution" the donor personally benefits from. I've only done it for small scale things like days out, but it's perfectly possible to do it on a larger scale. That's what the govt are trying to clamp down on.

Even if the donor doesn't personally benefit, why should anyone have the right to say eg some arts charity is more deserving than the NHS?

We do already have some degree of right to decide where money is spent, in our voting choices. Sadly as often as not what we vote for is not implemented.

I also fundamentally believe their should be some discretional aspect to where our money goes, i am happy for that to be via charitable donation. The nhs pitched against an arts charity sounds very obvious, unless your money is goig to an 'iffy' area of the nhs, and the arts charity provides hope for people for whom the nhs cannot. Things are rarelt as cut and dried as medicine v arts in life, and if thery were we would all be ruddy selfish to have made spends on home computers and internet access not giving all our extra to the nhs.

StevieJ

zagfles wrote: »

Up front - then I get a £11.25 rebate on my tax return. Direct subsidy to me from the taxman.

£11.25 to be pedantic
It illustrates that it is perfectly possible to get a tax rebate from a "contribution" the donor personally benefits from. I've only done it for small scale things like days out, but it's perfectly possible to do it on a larger scale. That's what the govt are trying to clamp down on.
?

I wouldn't like to get in a round with you

bob_a_builder

Up front - then I get a £11.25 rebate on my tax return. Direct subsidy to me from the taxman.

If thats how it works, its mad

Surely "Gift Aid" was only ever intended to benefit the 'big castle' not the visitor

zagfles

bob_a_builder wrote: »

If thats how it works, its mad

Surely "Gift Aid" was only ever intended to benefit the 'big castle' not the visitor

That's exactly how it works. And will continue to work - all the govt are doing is putting a £50,000 limit on it (or 25% of income if more)

CLAPTON

DavidLaGuardia wrote: »

Below 2 years old, but appear not to pay directors, so not sure of your example

http://www.hyde-housing.co.uk/client_files/library/prefromance/FINAL%20-%20HYDE%20CHARITABLE%20TRUST%2031%20MARCH%202010.pdf

thank you for your excellent example

in fact Hyde housing trust owns thousands of properties with total asset value of some billions

but their web of companies make it very difficiult to find out the facts

like your example only deals with a minisule part of their empire


maybe try to find their true consolidated accounts showing how much their directors really take out

LydiaJ

Why £50,000? Rather than a cap, it would be better to change the rules so you can only gift-aid things if they are donations, pure and simple, but not if you are getting goods or services in return. (OK, I understand that might be harder to implement, but a £50,000 cap seems such an incredibly blunt instrument.)

shortchanged_2

CLAPTON wrote: »

most charities are frauds with very highly paid executives and very little money actually going to 'charity'

e.g oxfam, greenpeace are now massive highly paid lobbying organisations


and of course Laim Fox's 'charity' was closed down

Yes unfortunately the same as most things charities are now far too open to abuse.

Let's face it. Eton School has charitable status. What a farce.