Seemingly trivial things that annoy you

veronese68

TheBigBean said:

kingstongraham said:

Do you genuinely want the state to be doing everything that charities do?

Some of things done by charities could/should be done by the state. Don't fall into the extreme opinion trap.

This, the state should be doing a lot better.

rick_chasey

Can I just say the “I think charities help the problem” argument is one I don’t share in public.

Tried it once a long time ago, never again.

kingstongraham

TheBigBean said:

kingstongraham said:

Do you genuinely want the state to be doing everything that charities do?

Some of things done by charities could/should be done by the state. Don't fall into the extreme opinion trap.

I was questioning what I regard as an extreme opinion - "Charity is a failure of the state." and "charity, society's way of saying there isn't enough state support for something important".

Charities are not always a stand in for something the state should be doing.

I don't think the state should be running DogsTrust or parkrun, for example.

rick_chasey

Or indeed private schools, right? 😜

TheBigBean

kingstongraham said:

TheBigBean said:

kingstongraham said:

Do you genuinely want the state to be doing everything that charities do?

Some of things done by charities could/should be done by the state. Don't fall into the extreme opinion trap.

I was questioning what I regard as an extreme opinion - "Charity is a failure of the state." and "charity, society's way of saying there isn't enough state support for something important".

Charities are not always a stand in for something the state should be doing.

I don't think the state should be running DogsTrust or parkrun, for example.

Yes, I agree although I can see the merit of the state subsidising some things such as parkrun.

I think a more interesting discussion can be had on where/how the line should be drawn rather than debating the extreme position that there should be no charity.

kingstongraham

rick_chasey said:

Or indeed private schools, right? 😜

Whether charities should get special tax treatment is a different matter, and what counts as charities is another.

One of my hot takes is that Gift Aid is a terrible, terrible idea. You shouldn't generally be able to avoid tax by doing something that you personally decide is a better use of that money.

morstar

RNLI.

Absolutely no idea why this is a charity and not a public service?

Seafaring island nation.

Pross

morstar said:

RNLI.

Absolutely no idea why this is a charity and not a public service?

Seafaring island nation.

And air ambulances.

kingstongraham

morstar said:

RNLI.

Absolutely no idea why this is a charity and not a public service?

Seafaring island nation.

Because they don't want to be subject to any political interfering - can you imagine if they were publicly funded just now?

shirley_basso

RNLI seems to get gets loads of stick for being bloated and too rich and domiciled offshore.

Personally I haven't really managed to get into the detail but as a very keen water user and offshore sailor, I happily donate.

If anyone knows - what IS the issue some people have with the RNLI?

morstar

kingstongraham said:

rick_chasey said:

Or indeed private schools, right? 😜

Whether charities should get special tax treatment is a different matter, and what counts as charities is another.

One of my hot takes is that Gift Aid is a terrible, terrible idea. You shouldn't generally be able to avoid tax by doing something that you personally decide is a better use of that money.

Not sure I agree. You still pay the bill of the capital outlay and the government lets the tax go.

You are worse off than not giving at all and the charity benefits to the full untaxed value of your gift.

You aren’t better off by virtue of giving.

TheBigBean

morstar said:

kingstongraham said:

rick_chasey said:

Or indeed private schools, right? 😜

Whether charities should get special tax treatment is a different matter, and what counts as charities is another.

One of my hot takes is that Gift Aid is a terrible, terrible idea. You shouldn't generally be able to avoid tax by doing something that you personally decide is a better use of that money.

Not sure I agree. You still pay the bill of the capital outlay and the government lets the tax go.

You are worse off than not giving at all and the charity benefits to the full untaxed value of your gift.

You aren’t better off by virtue of giving.

You do end up with situation that it is cheaper for a higher earner to go the zoo than a lower earner.

Stevo_666

I give regularly to animal welfare charities, should we really have the government running these? Fyi a quick google show that there are plenty of German ones.

As far as I'm concerned, I'm better placed to decide which charities to support than any government organisation - I also have control over which ones I support and how much & when I pay. And its tax deductible

kingstongraham

Stevo_666 said:

I give regularly to animal welfare charities, should we really have the government running these? Fyi a quick google show that there are plenty of German ones.

As far as I'm concerned, I'm better placed to decide which charities to support than any government organisation - I also have control over which ones I support and how much & when I pay. And its tax deductible

I agree, you have the right to decide where to place your money, but it shouldn't be tax deductible. You have decided that your money is better spent on dogs than roads or flood defences - the whole point of tax is that you don't make that choice directly.

kingstongraham

morstar said:

kingstongraham said:

rick_chasey said:

Or indeed private schools, right? 😜

Whether charities should get special tax treatment is a different matter, and what counts as charities is another.

One of my hot takes is that Gift Aid is a terrible, terrible idea. You shouldn't generally be able to avoid tax by doing something that you personally decide is a better use of that money.

Not sure I agree. You still pay the bill of the capital outlay and the government lets the tax go.

You are worse off than not giving at all and the charity benefits to the full untaxed value of your gift.

You aren’t better off by virtue of giving.

But why should you be able to decide that Romanian cats deserve that money reclaimed through giftaid, so someone else has to pay the extra tax to make up the difference?

focuszing723

focuszing723 said:

First.Aspect said:

London Marathon coverage. All of it. I hate the music, how damn long it is, the faux excitement, Claire Balding, and especially the British public.

https://twitter.com/NoContextBrits/status/1650226486572400641?cxt=HHwWgoC2seGP5OYtAAAA

I hope this clip helps console your annoyance.

If I had a time machine I'd go back in time and remove this post. It was supposed to be fun.

FUN!

Not a bloody debate on charities.

Stevo_666

kingstongraham said:

Stevo_666 said:

I give regularly to animal welfare charities, should we really have the government running these? Fyi a quick google show that there are plenty of German ones.

As far as I'm concerned, I'm better placed to decide which charities to support than any government organisation - I also have control over which ones I support and how much & when I pay. And its tax deductible

I agree, you have the right to decide where to place your money, but it shouldn't be tax deductible. You have decided that your money is better spent on dogs than roads or flood defences - the whole point of tax is that you don't make that choice directly.

I've already paid my bit for roads and flood defences. There is quite rightly an incentive to fund other worthy causes which the government can't or shouldn't really get involved in. As you say, the state should not be doing everything that charities do.

kingstongraham

Stevo_666 said:

kingstongraham said:

Stevo_666 said:

I give regularly to animal welfare charities, should we really have the government running these? Fyi a quick google show that there are plenty of German ones.

As far as I'm concerned, I'm better placed to decide which charities to support than any government organisation - I also have control over which ones I support and how much & when I pay. And its tax deductible

I agree, you have the right to decide where to place your money, but it shouldn't be tax deductible. You have decided that your money is better spent on dogs than roads or flood defences - the whole point of tax is that you don't make that choice directly.

I've already paid my bit for roads and flood defences. There is quite rightly an incentive to fund other worthy causes which the government can't or shouldn't really get involved in. As you say, the state should not be doing everything that charities do.

"My bit" lol.

The state is funding those things if it's giving taxpayer money to them through gift aid.

Stevo_666

kingstongraham said:

Stevo_666 said:

kingstongraham said:

Stevo_666 said:

I give regularly to animal welfare charities, should we really have the government running these? Fyi a quick google show that there are plenty of German ones.

As far as I'm concerned, I'm better placed to decide which charities to support than any government organisation - I also have control over which ones I support and how much & when I pay. And its tax deductible

I agree, you have the right to decide where to place your money, but it shouldn't be tax deductible. You have decided that your money is better spent on dogs than roads or flood defences - the whole point of tax is that you don't make that choice directly.

I've already paid my bit for roads and flood defences. There is quite rightly an incentive to fund other worthy causes which the government can't or shouldn't really get involved in. As you say, the state should not be doing everything that charities do.

"My bit" lol.

The state is funding those things if it's giving taxpayer money to them through gift aid.

It's cheaper for the state than funding the whole lot itself.

focuszing723

Gawd, some of you could turn paint into a political debate.

Stevo_666

focuszing723 said:

Gawd, some of you could turn paint into a political debate.

Sorry FZ, but there's leftiebollox on the internet that needs correcting and sometimes I just can't help myself

pblakeney

focuszing723 said:

Gawd, some of you could turn paint into a political debate.

Colour labels? 🤣

focuszing723

Stevo_666 said:

focuszing723 said:

Gawd, some of you could turn paint into a political debate.

Sorry FZ, but there's leftiebollox on the internet that needs correcting and sometimes I just can't help myself

I'm not havin a go at you Stevo, you didn’t start it. It was one of those pothead horse eaters.

For christ sake avoid mentioning blue paint.

rjsterry

morstar said:

RNLI.

Absolutely no idea why this is a charity and not a public service?

Seafaring island nation.

It predates the welfare state by well over a century. I imagine it prefers the independence.

Stevo_666

focuszing723 said:

Stevo_666 said:

focuszing723 said:

Gawd, some of you could turn paint into a political debate.

Sorry FZ, but there's leftiebollox on the internet that needs correcting and sometimes I just can't help myself

I'm not havin a go at you Stevo, you didn’t start it. It was one of those pothead horse eaters.

For christ sake avoid mentioning blue paint.

I'm at least partially guilty for joining in something that started out as fun but will likely ended up disappearing up its own political backside in true Cake Stop fashion.

rjsterry

kingstongraham said:

morstar said:

kingstongraham said:

rick_chasey said:

Or indeed private schools, right? 😜

Whether charities should get special tax treatment is a different matter, and what counts as charities is another.

One of my hot takes is that Gift Aid is a terrible, terrible idea. You shouldn't generally be able to avoid tax by doing something that you personally decide is a better use of that money.

Not sure I agree. You still pay the bill of the capital outlay and the government lets the tax go.

You are worse off than not giving at all and the charity benefits to the full untaxed value of your gift.

You aren’t better off by virtue of giving.

But why should you be able to decide that Romanian cats deserve that money reclaimed through giftaid, so someone else has to pay the extra tax to make up the difference?

Total cost of gift aid is I think £1.3bn, so pretty small beer.

morstar

kingstongraham said:

morstar said:

kingstongraham said:

rick_chasey said:

Or indeed private schools, right? 😜

Whether charities should get special tax treatment is a different matter, and what counts as charities is another.

One of my hot takes is that Gift Aid is a terrible, terrible idea. You shouldn't generally be able to avoid tax by doing something that you personally decide is a better use of that money.

Not sure I agree. You still pay the bill of the capital outlay and the government lets the tax go.

You are worse off than not giving at all and the charity benefits to the full untaxed value of your gift.

You aren’t better off by virtue of giving.

But why should you be able to decide that Romanian cats deserve that money reclaimed through giftaid, so someone else has to pay the extra tax to make up the difference?

Is it not democratising of public expenditure?

Basic rate tax payer.

If I want to give my money to a charity, the premise is I can give them the pre-tax amount.

I’ve not taken anything from anyone. I’ve said where I believe money should be spent. Why can government allocate the money better than individuals? (Copyright SC).

If everybody paid 20% of their earnings where they saw fit, I think the results would be very interesting (obviously not going to happen but it’d be interesting).

The fact it is a registered charity surely means it meets the criteria of that funding model.

rjsterry

shirley_basso said:

RNLI seems to get gets loads of stick for being bloated and too rich and domiciled offshore.

Personally I haven't really managed to get into the detail but as a very keen water user and offshore sailor, I happily donate.

If anyone knows - what IS the issue some people have with the RNLI?

Part of the wokerati I believe.

Only half joking.

morstar

TheBigBean said:

morstar said:

kingstongraham said:

rick_chasey said:

Or indeed private schools, right? 😜

Whether charities should get special tax treatment is a different matter, and what counts as charities is another.

One of my hot takes is that Gift Aid is a terrible, terrible idea. You shouldn't generally be able to avoid tax by doing something that you personally decide is a better use of that money.

Not sure I agree. You still pay the bill of the capital outlay and the government lets the tax go.

You are worse off than not giving at all and the charity benefits to the full untaxed value of your gift.

You aren’t better off by virtue of giving.

You do end up with situation that it is cheaper for a higher earner to go the zoo than a lower earner.

The way I understand it is.

Say it’s £100 to enter the zoo.

20% tax payer paid £100 which was £125 pre-tax earnings. Zoo gets £125. Taxpayer gets nothing back.

Ignore that for some reason these places often charge more to GA.

Higher (40%) earner pays £100 which was £166.67 pre tax.

Zoo still gets £125, tax payer gets 20% relief on £125. A tax reduction of £25.

They have still paid more tax but have reduced their tax burden.

First.Aspect

Zoos are outdated, and you should really be donating to wildlife charities, you know.