Is giving to charity just another form of taxation?

epoman

Now, I really don't mean to flame with this thread but this board seemed a good place to air my views on charity.

Over the last 10 years I have given a considerable amount of my professional time to various charities, acting as Chairman, trustee and comittee member. I have assisted with fund raising and have personally contributed financially. This is in addition to the run of the mill donations that everybody does out of civic duty.

However, in recent times I have begun to become a little resentful. The type of charity I involve myself with are in areas where the government has a responsibility (health). It just seems to me that the more time/money I give, the less the government has to give. If I stopped altogether (and assuming nobody else filled my gap) the govt would have to provide out of the taxes we already pay.

I'm beginning to form the view that charity is just another form of taxation, albeit voluntary!

Savvy_Sue

I think it does depend on the charity. Clearly some charity work would have to be done by somebody, and if charities give up on it, the gap will be missed. And I'd probably better not get started on the Lottery, which is used to fund things which would in the past have been funded by government. It's a real problem for organisations which have ethical objects to gambling.

But some charities can (and do) do things which government (local or national) can't do well. Befriending, for example.

Also an increasing number of charities 'bid' for contracts from the state, and may be able to do a better job than the state. But problems arise when the state doesn't want to fund 'full cost recovery', ie wants to get it on the cheap.

But the big difference is that you CAN choose to give your time and money in this way. And you can choose when, and how, and to whom you give. Which is not a choice with taxation. Alas.

500yearvision

In the Czech Republic it seems that the common view is that charities exist where the state fails.

Admittedly, my experience is only with small voluntary groups in the UK, however I feel very strongly that what we get out of charities is far more than simply finance. For example, there are may people who work as volunteers running such groups who develop invaluable skills as well as having a very meaningful positive impact on their local communities.

I feel that presently, the Czech economy is really missing out on the work of small voluntary groups. Such groups often create a sense of community, and often respond quickly to needs in a way that government would find difficult.

Some people are prevented from taking paid employment - for example if they have children with specific needs and varying time commitments as a result - and voluntary work gives them a way to interact with society. After all, work isn't only about earning money, it's also the way we put our energy into the world!

Epoman, well done for your commitment to charities so far. You're doing far more than many people can be bothered to.

epoman

Savvy_Sue wrote: »

And I'd probably better not get started on the Lottery, which is used to fund things which would in the past have been funded by government.

Exactly. It's yet another stealth tax. The only difference is that it's voluntary.

Savvy_Sue wrote: »

But some charities can (and do) do things which government (local or national) can't do well. Befriending, for example.

Yes, if an extra service is being provided then I have less of an issue. However, if the charity did not exist then surely the govt should provide these services also?

Savvy_Sue wrote: »

Also an increasing number of charities 'bid' for contracts from the state, and may be able to do a better job than the state. But problems arise when the state doesn't want to fund 'full cost recovery', ie wants to get it on the cheap.

One of the charities with which I am involved receives a very large 6 figure sum from the local council in order to run local services. The trustees and committee members are volunteers however as the organisation started as a completely self funded charity. If we all resigned tomorrow the govt would have to pay for the professional services it is presently being provided with free of cost.

Savvy_Sue wrote: »

But the big difference is that you CAN choose to give your time and money in this way. And you can choose when, and how, and to whom you give. Which is not a choice with taxation. Alas.

I think may just decide to stop giving - only if we all stop giving will the govt step up to it's responsibilities. However I fear that the only people who will suffer are the people who gain benefit from charity.

epoman

Another example is the recent tsunami in asia. Like everybody else I gave my fair share, but why was this our responsibility? Should the state not provide from the billions it raises in taxes?

epoman

500yearvision wrote: »

After all, work isn't only about earning money, it's also the way we put our energy into the world!

I like that! I'm sure a lot of people think the same way and get involved through a sense of civic duty. I have met a lot of unpaid volunteers and I have nothing but admiration for all of them.

asea

epoman wrote: »

Another example is the recent tsunami in asia. Like everybody else I gave my fair share, but why was this our responsibility? Should the state not provide from the billions it raises in taxes?

which state?

Savvy_Sue

epoman wrote: »

Yes, if an extra service is being provided then I have less of an issue. However, if the charity did not exist then surely the govt should provide these services also?

Of course historically many of the things we take for granted as government services were started as 'good works' by the churches and others. Their activities were seen as 'a good thing' and the state takes over. Now realises that charities can actually do some things better, but not always willing to pay the price.

DH and I work for different charities, but we both have a large number of volunteers active in our work. And that makes a big difference between what our charities can offer our clients to what the state offers: this person sitting here listening to the client is doing it because they choose to, not because they are paid to do so. And if the client comes back week after week in the same desperate situation, despite opportunities to change it, the volunteer will still listen - it's not a case of "you've had your chance, now it's someone else's turn."

epoman wrote: »

I think may just decide to stop giving - only if we all stop giving will the govt step up to it's responsibilities. However I fear that the only people who will suffer are the people who gain benefit from charity.

There's the rub ...

GiveItBack

epoman wrote: »

I think may just decide to stop giving - only if we all stop giving will the govt step up to it's responsibilities. However I fear that the only people who will suffer are the people who gain benefit from charity.

That's exactly the problem. For example, a charity that provides a specialist care service for the local authority. If the charity stopped providing specialist care then the people they care for would end up in all kinds of completely unsuitable places receiving 'care' of some form, but not what they need. Their quality of life would almost completely disappear, and their life expectancy would drop dramatically too.

But the local authority would still be 'caring' for them.

ruth39

Charities do a wide range of things that the state wouldn't provide. I work for a small charity and before we existed, the projects we run just did not exist. That is the same for a lot of charities. Most start up because there is a real need that nobody is meeting. And when charities fold because of lack of funding or volunteers, the state does not usually step in and start providing these services instead.

I can appreciate that there are a small number of charities where this is not the case. But you only have to think of lots of the better known charities to know that the state won't step in to provide services instead of them.

seashore321

If people like the OP did not volunteer yes we would be st..fed. Yes you question what you do. but in the broad scheme of things you have to do what you think is right.
As long as we volunteer the govt or any govt. will let us. If we stop volunteering and doing our best the world will be in an even greater mess. Womens refuges and many others cannot survive unless people help.

Without people like the OP the world would be a sadder place.

Never question what you do unless the question is, someone else can do it for me, the chances are that person may not exist!