Do you think charity should be compulsory? Are the problems in different continents, for example, a responsibility of everyone? What about funding for finding a cure for AIDS or other diseases/viruses? Are we stingy bastards? And has charity become just another consumer-tactic to get you to part with cash?
I only ask because of two things. First was seeing Bono getting dressed down on the BBC for stating that the British government should give more money to Africa. The response to him was that he is really asking for the British taxpayer to be made to give some of their taxes to Africa - and considering he has deliberately resided his taxes outside of Ireland (I think they said the Netherlands - I could be mistaken) it seems a tad hypocritical. Secondly was seeing an ad for a red Ipod Nano in which 5% of the proceeds go to an AIDS charity. This reminded me of the pink appliances someone posted on here too.
I really am beginning to feel charity is just another consumer item to display. So, "I'm using a red Ipod - feel my compassion!" as opposed to doing it without the need to display it. But then again you're still giving to chairty if you buy an Ipod. I just think it would be more charitable if Apple donated a bunch of Ipods to an AIDS charity and if you donated a certain amount you got one for nothing. If image really is the concern here all parties come off well.
Any thoughts?
One thing I do feel quite strongly about is that each western country's foreign aid budgets should be much higher, although Britain's is actually better than most. Canada's is pitiful.
Every once and awhile here we learn that while Canadians have a self-image of themselves as generous when it comes to charities, statistics and polls show that they are way less generous than those "selfish" Americans, who contribute way more to charity.
The problem apparently is that Canadians feel it's the government's role to do a lot of the things charities are asking for.
It's interesting that people are more generous when they expect less from government.
On the other hand, friends and work colleagues I know are always doing something for a good cause. There was a barbecue at my workplace three weeks ago to house the city's homeless, there have been two major marathons in the city in the last two weeks, one for breast cancer the other for the United Way. And people I know are often engaged in fundraisers of one sort or another.
I get the impression, sometimes that the "cause" is secondary to someone making money, perhaps the CEO and top officers. You find some send out more trash than others. Perhaps I'm being cynical in my old age.
There is a huge difference between countries on how charitable work is done. You got no tax relief in britain and there was the feeling that it should be equitable, and therefore foreign aid should come from taxes. Here, the "voluntary" and "small government" views mean less government aid.
In the tsunami, some organizations said that American aid was small, but they only compared government aid, if they had compared total aid, government and private, the result would have been different.
Tend to think that most charity given via UN and direct government aid tends to go no where really.
There is no real oversight of fund distribution. Send a million half of it gets given in various pay offs, 10% goes for the real charity work and the rest the recieving party spends on guns and tanks.
I think the US gives more than any country but gets little thanks for it. Its like earth quake happens, "please send us money and aide. Money and aide is forth coming, then they turn around and say, but we still hate you"
Shame really
I heard a report today that of $B1.2 given to equip the Iraqi military, M$400 was spent on old out of date equipment and $M800 has disappeared into the void.
That report sounds quite accurate to me.
I'd like to see the US try a new approach where local contractors, businesses etc. are paid a good fee to build, fix or defend and US businesses are way down in the pecking order.
No-bid contracts should be outlawed entirely.
I think in tems of % of GDP donated to charity, Luxembourg and Denmark have about the highest rate.
The pink stuff just seems to be a marketing ploy. I saw the red stuff too. Really, shouldn't some companies (especially those that pollute) be giving to cancer charities anyway, as they're probably responsible for some of it?
As far as it coming out of taxes, I have no beef with that. I do have a problem with the no competition government contracts.
One problem I find with the charities is once you have given to one of them, there is a never ending slew of more letters asking for money and address labels.
When I adopted my cats from an animal shelter I gave a donation as well as the adoption fee. Each month they seem to send a letter asking me to give a donation or set up a monthly donation from my bank. I just don't want to do it and I worry about the amount of paper money and time it wastes for them to keep sending the letters. It seems all the charities do this and I'm afraid I just don't have the money for all of them.
Another thing I hate is the grocery stores all seem to have a thing where they ask you for a dollar for some cause at the end of totalling up your groceries. I guess I just don't want to be harrassed like that.
Not to mention all the charity stuff at work, someone is Walking for the Cause, Sleeping for the Cause, doing a triathlon, someones kid is selling cookie dough. At home kids in the street have to sell silly books of coupons and other items. It seems endless sometimes. Or perhaps I'm a mean bugger.
Anyway, to sum up I think I actually like taxes going to charity. I can't always work out whether I find the charity to be worthy and I don't like to be hassled. However, I don't think that government funding charities will stop the hassling.
Do you think charity should be compulsory?
No, because then it's tax.
Londonsquare I am not talking about what the US does to back a US backed government. As ColenPowell said "if you break something you own it". Therefore we have to provide Iraq with stuff.
I am talking charity, starving people etc etc
The government taking the aid still creams off the top. Band Aid, look at the millions starving yet Ethiopia could still afford to buy guns and fight Eriteria and not feed its own people.
India back in the 60's was given a bunch of money to help starving people. What was done with that money??? Used to build a new parliament building. Which stopped the UK government from sending aid for many years.
Only charity I give to is the Sally army. The Director takes home less than 30,000 a year. Then look at the directors of so called other charities. It say's a whole bunch.
I understood, Goose, I just threw that in because i heard it today and it does fit with what happened to aid money to African countries, somehow, it didn't trickle down, it stuck in government official's hands. That's why the Gates foundation states a purpose and then manages the program and the money, themselves.
Do you think charity should be compulsory?
No, because then it's tax.
agreed.
There seems to be some confusion as to what charity actally is.
....and according to the OED, It's a Christian love of one's fellow men. shock ;)
There seems to be some confusion as to what charity actally is.
....and according to the OED, It's a Christian love of one's fellow men. :shock: ;)
Ooooeeer...that's what got Oscar wilde in trouble !!!
The word "charity" is used in the King James Version of the Bible as a translation of "agape (ah gah pay)" the Greek word for "Godly love". It is indeed used as "love of fellow man" but certainly not in the physical sense, that would be a different word entirely.
Agreed, if charity in the secular sense was compulsory, it would be tax.
Somehow although Bono's tax exile is hypocritical on the face of it, he uses the laws as they stand to allow him to use more of his money for charitable purposes. If he gives his money to the Irish government they won't spend it on charity. But the money the Dutch let him keep, he can spend how he likes. Ends justify the means?