Seemingly trivial things that annoy you

surrey_commuter

morstar said:

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.

on the annual tax return can you claim a rebate on Giftaid?

As a republican when I was asked to giftaid my admission charge into Windsor Castle I refused

kingstongraham

rjsterry said:

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.

It's a trivial thing that irrationally annoys me.

I don't know why a low tax person would want someone else to be able to spend their tax money on their pet project. It's the opposite of controlled public spending.

morstar

kingstongraham said:

rjsterry said:

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.

It's a trivial thing that irrationally annoys me.

I don't know why a low tax person would want someone else to be able to spend their tax money on their pet project. It's the opposite of controlled public spending.

Think of it as no different to any other salary sacrifice.

If a charity has charitable status, it has presumably passed some criteria that make it worthy of such financial benefits (clearly a subjective).

Why is charity giving less worthy than buying bikes or squirrelling away money in pensions. At least in this case, the beneficiary is not directly yourself.

TheBigBean

surrey_commuter said:

on the annual tax return can you claim a rebate on Giftaid?

I refused

Yes. It annoys me. I know I could not bother, but I feel that I should do it and it is a hassle to work out what I have gift aided more than year before. I'm happy to ban it for everyone just to avoid my irrational annoyance.

TheBigBean

morstar said:

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.

Yes, yes, but the higher rate tax payer didn't go to the zoo to be charitable, they did it for entertainment, so I'm not sure why they need the subsidy.

kingstongraham

morstar said:

kingstongraham said:

rjsterry said:

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.

It's a trivial thing that irrationally annoys me.

I don't know why a low tax person would want someone else to be able to spend their tax money on their pet project. It's the opposite of controlled public spending.

Think of it as no different to any other salary sacrifice.

If a charity has charitable status, it has presumably passed some criteria that make it worthy of such financial benefits (clearly a subjective).

Why is charity giving less worthy than buying bikes or squirrelling away money in pensions. At least in this case, the beneficiary is not directly yourself.

It's not about being worthy or not worthy, it's about whether the taxpayer should be spending money on the IEA or the Eton Fives Association.

rjsterry

kingstongraham said:

rjsterry said:

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.

It's a trivial thing that irrationally annoys me.

I don't know why a low tax person would want someone else to be able to spend their tax money on their pet project. It's the opposite of controlled public spending.

Think of it as encouraging donations rather than a fancier holiday.

rjsterry

kingstongraham said:

morstar said:

kingstongraham said:

rjsterry said:

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.

It's a trivial thing that irrationally annoys me.

I don't know why a low tax person would want someone else to be able to spend their tax money on their pet project. It's the opposite of controlled public spending.

Think of it as no different to any other salary sacrifice.

If a charity has charitable status, it has presumably passed some criteria that make it worthy of such financial benefits (clearly a subjective).

Why is charity giving less worthy than buying bikes or squirrelling away money in pensions. At least in this case, the beneficiary is not directly yourself.

It's not about being worthy or not worthy, it's about whether the taxpayer should be spending money on the IEA or the Eton Fives Association.

The taxpayer isn't. The government is forgoing some revenue. It hasn't put taxes up to compensate for that loss, because it is trivial. Once you've paid the tax it's no longer your money, whatever bollox the TPA might tell you.

briantrumpet

rjsterry said:

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.

OOI, should that be "pre-dates"? I initially read it as the verb of 'predatory'. Apologies for the pedantry.

rjsterry

You can read it either way according to KG. 😁

briantrumpet

rjsterry said:

You can read it either way according to KG. 😁

The interweb tells me I'm out of date. Must admit, I knew that already, in many other ways.

kingstongraham

rjsterry said:

kingstongraham said:

morstar said:

kingstongraham said:

rjsterry said:

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.

It's a trivial thing that irrationally annoys me.

I don't know why a low tax person would want someone else to be able to spend their tax money on their pet project. It's the opposite of controlled public spending.

Think of it as no different to any other salary sacrifice.

If a charity has charitable status, it has presumably passed some criteria that make it worthy of such financial benefits (clearly a subjective).

Why is charity giving less worthy than buying bikes or squirrelling away money in pensions. At least in this case, the beneficiary is not directly yourself.

It's not about being worthy or not worthy, it's about whether the taxpayer should be spending money on the IEA or the Eton Fives Association.

The taxpayer isn't. The government is forgoing some revenue. It hasn't put taxes up to compensate for that loss, because it is trivial. Once you've paid the tax it's no longer your money, whatever bollox the TPA might tell you.

Where does the extra money the charity gets come from? The magic tree?

morstar

kingstongraham said:

morstar said:

kingstongraham said:

rjsterry said:

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.

It's a trivial thing that irrationally annoys me.

I don't know why a low tax person would want someone else to be able to spend their tax money on their pet project. It's the opposite of controlled public spending.

Think of it as no different to any other salary sacrifice.

If a charity has charitable status, it has presumably passed some criteria that make it worthy of such financial benefits (clearly a subjective).

Why is charity giving less worthy than buying bikes or squirrelling away money in pensions. At least in this case, the beneficiary is not directly yourself.

It's not about being worthy or not worthy, it's about whether the taxpayer should be spending money on the IEA or the Eton Fives Association.

Making the root cause of your issue being what gets charitable status.

rjsterry

kingstongraham said:

rjsterry said:

kingstongraham said:

morstar said:

kingstongraham said:

rjsterry said:

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.

It's a trivial thing that irrationally annoys me.

I don't know why a low tax person would want someone else to be able to spend their tax money on their pet project. It's the opposite of controlled public spending.

Think of it as no different to any other salary sacrifice.

If a charity has charitable status, it has presumably passed some criteria that make it worthy of such financial benefits (clearly a subjective).

Why is charity giving less worthy than buying bikes or squirrelling away money in pensions. At least in this case, the beneficiary is not directly yourself.

It's not about being worthy or not worthy, it's about whether the taxpayer should be spending money on the IEA or the Eton Fives Association.

The taxpayer isn't. The government is forgoing some revenue. It hasn't put taxes up to compensate for that loss, because it is trivial. Once you've paid the tax it's no longer your money, whatever bollox the TPA might tell you.

Where does the extra money the charity gets come from? The magic tree?

From the government. But it's trivial from their revenue collection perspective. Obviously not for the charities. Pretty sure the wording on the form is that you consent to the charity reclaiming the tax paid from the government.

Looking at it the other way, why should there be a tax on charitable donations?

morstar

TheBigBean said:

morstar said:

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.

Yes, yes, but the higher rate tax payer didn't go to the zoo to be charitable, they did it for entertainment, so I'm not sure why they need the subsidy.

I think a better point would then be why doesn’t the charity get the 40%?

I’d assume it is purely for simplicity sake. Easier to allow a small tax saving than to build in more complexity to the calculation.

After 5 years or so of tax returns, I managed to replicate the maths HMRC use to calculate tax codes, it’s not how I would have done it. Adding in a load of complexity around gift aid would have been a lot of faff.

kingstongraham

rjsterry said:

kingstongraham said:

rjsterry said:

kingstongraham said:

morstar said:

kingstongraham said:

rjsterry said:

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.

It's a trivial thing that irrationally annoys me.

I don't know why a low tax person would want someone else to be able to spend their tax money on their pet project. It's the opposite of controlled public spending.

Think of it as no different to any other salary sacrifice.

If a charity has charitable status, it has presumably passed some criteria that make it worthy of such financial benefits (clearly a subjective).

Why is charity giving less worthy than buying bikes or squirrelling away money in pensions. At least in this case, the beneficiary is not directly yourself.

It's not about being worthy or not worthy, it's about whether the taxpayer should be spending money on the IEA or the Eton Fives Association.

The taxpayer isn't. The government is forgoing some revenue. It hasn't put taxes up to compensate for that loss, because it is trivial. Once you've paid the tax it's no longer your money, whatever bollox the TPA might tell you.

Where does the extra money the charity gets come from? The magic tree?

From the government. But it's trivial from their revenue collection perspective. Obviously not for the charities. Pretty sure the wording on the form is that you consent to the charity reclaiming the tax paid from the government.

Looking at it the other way, why should there be a tax on charitable donations?

If you want to give money to what you consider to be good things, go ahead. Use your own money.

kingstongraham

morstar said:

kingstongraham said:

morstar said:

kingstongraham said:

rjsterry said:

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.

It's a trivial thing that irrationally annoys me.

I don't know why a low tax person would want someone else to be able to spend their tax money on their pet project. It's the opposite of controlled public spending.

Think of it as no different to any other salary sacrifice.

If a charity has charitable status, it has presumably passed some criteria that make it worthy of such financial benefits (clearly a subjective).

Why is charity giving less worthy than buying bikes or squirrelling away money in pensions. At least in this case, the beneficiary is not directly yourself.

It's not about being worthy or not worthy, it's about whether the taxpayer should be spending money on the IEA or the Eton Fives Association.

Making the root cause of your issue being what gets charitable status.

Not really, I also don't think the government should be allowing me to choose for my tax to go to the National Trust or Guide Dogs.

Pross

Isn't Gift Aid just giving your right to a tax rebate on the donation to the charity instead? If you decline Gift Aid you can claim the money back for yourself.

rjsterry

kingstongraham said:

rjsterry said:

kingstongraham said:

rjsterry said:

kingstongraham said:

morstar said:

kingstongraham said:

rjsterry said:

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.

It's a trivial thing that irrationally annoys me.

I don't know why a low tax person would want someone else to be able to spend their tax money on their pet project. It's the opposite of controlled public spending.

Think of it as no different to any other salary sacrifice.

If a charity has charitable status, it has presumably passed some criteria that make it worthy of such financial benefits (clearly a subjective).

Why is charity giving less worthy than buying bikes or squirrelling away money in pensions. At least in this case, the beneficiary is not directly yourself.

It's not about being worthy or not worthy, it's about whether the taxpayer should be spending money on the IEA or the Eton Fives Association.

The taxpayer isn't. The government is forgoing some revenue. It hasn't put taxes up to compensate for that loss, because it is trivial. Once you've paid the tax it's no longer your money, whatever bollox the TPA might tell you.

Where does the extra money the charity gets come from? The magic tree?

From the government. But it's trivial from their revenue collection perspective. Obviously not for the charities. Pretty sure the wording on the form is that you consent to the charity reclaiming the tax paid from the government.

Looking at it the other way, why should there be a tax on charitable donations?

If you want to give money to what you consider to be good things, go ahead. Use your own money.

Um, OK. I think I do. There are various tax reliefs to encourage desirable behaviour. One of those is charitable donations.

kingstongraham

Pross said:

Isn't Gift Aid just giving your right to a tax rebate on the donation to the charity instead? If you decline Gift Aid you can claim the money back for yourself.

Yes, consider gift aid as the easy shortcut explanation of the issue. Also see charity foundations.

pinno

Blimey, 2 pages of... going around in circles since I made the reply.

But [with true pedantic style] I shall list a few charities that perhaps should be state funded:

RNLI - I wonder how often they have assisted in rescuing immigrants which is a problem caused by politics and so therefore, some state funding should be awarded.
The English channel is a very busy shipping route which serves us and many other nations in Europe.
RSPCA - Animal welfare not only covers Mrs Jones's daughters pet Hamster, they were involved in the BSE crisis and often have to take up the slack where unemployment rises and animals are abandoned. In recent times, people got pets during lockdown and now they are back working, the pets became a secondary surplus. Again, the RSPCA is having to pick up changes to the economy.
Marie Curie - people will die but many suffer. These people step in. Consider the many who were not with diagnosed life threatening ailments during lockdown due to suspended services and may suffer extra as a consequence. Politically derived effects.
MacMillan Cancer relief. I have personally used them when I ended up going in and out of hospital whilst I was in Scotland but had accommodation in Cheltenham. They paid my rent or else I was going to have to find 8 months rent when I finally got back to Cheltenham.
(Glos. CC actually retrospectively paid Housing benefit with their peculiar policy where this was possible, Few councils actually do this but it meant I paid MacMillan Cancer relief back!)
The consequences of contracting a life threatening condition is often not covered by the welfare state. I came across many who were suffering the financial hardship of a serious condition. Why should a charity pay for the discrepancies in the welfare state?

The argument should be about the charities who are providing essential services and those who are not and whether there should be partial state funding.

rick_chasey

So apparently proton pump inhibitors (I suffer from very painful and acute indigestion) over the long term increases the likelihood of bone fractures.

*looks at how since 2017 when I crash I almost always break a bone*


Ffs.

Munsford0

That's good to know. I've been on them for years

rick_chasey

Munsford0 said:

That's good to know. I've been on them for years

https://www.nhs.uk/medicines/omeprazole/common-questions-about-omeprazole/

Taking omeprazole for more than a year may increase your chances of certain side effects, including:

bone fractures
gut infections
vitamin B12 deficiency – symptoms include feeling very tired, a sore and red tongue, mouth ulcers and pins and needles

rjsterry

pinno said:

Blimey, 2 pages of... going around in circles since I made the reply.

But [with true pedantic style] I shall list a few charities that perhaps should be state funded:

RNLI - I wonder how often they have assisted in rescuing immigrants which is a problem caused by politics and so therefore, some state funding should be awarded.
The English channel is a very busy shipping route which serves us and many other nations in Europe.
RSPCA - Animal welfare not only covers Mrs Jones's daughters pet Hamster, they were involved in the BSE crisis and often have to take up the slack where unemployment rises and animals are abandoned. In recent times, people got pets during lockdown and now they are back working, the pets became a secondary surplus. Again, the RSPCA is having to pick up changes to the economy.
Marie Curie - people will die but many suffer. These people step in. Consider the many who were not with diagnosed life threatening ailments during lockdown due to suspended services and may suffer extra as a consequence. Politically derived effects.
MacMillan Cancer relief. I have personally used them when I ended up going in and out of hospital whilst I was in Scotland but had accommodation in Cheltenham. They paid my rent or else I was going to have to find 8 months rent when I finally got back to Cheltenham.
(Glos. CC actually retrospectively paid Housing benefit with their peculiar policy where this was possible, Few councils actually do this but it meant I paid MacMillan Cancer relief back!)
The consequences of contracting a life threatening condition is often not covered by the welfare state. I came across many who were suffering the financial hardship of a serious condition. Why should a charity pay for the discrepancies in the welfare state?

The argument should be about the charities who are providing essential services and those who are not and whether there should be partial state funding.

Interestingly, the RNLI is clearly proud of their independent status. I get the impression that they prefer that to being a nationalised service.

I do think there's some advantages to smaller independent organisations. There's still the option for government to fund individual organisations directly where their interests overlap.

Stevo_666

Pross said:

Isn't Gift Aid just giving your right to a tax rebate on the donation to the charity instead? If you decline Gift Aid you can claim the money back for yourself.

The charity gets the grossed up amount but the individual also gets a tax deduction - if they put it in their tax return of course. Its a nice little bit of icing on the cake for me when I support what I see as worthy causes

Pross

Crisp manufacturers failing to agree on a common colour scheme for their flavours meaning you pick up what you think is cheese & onion and get salt & vinegar instead.

I blame Walkers as I'm sure everyone used to use green for cheese & onion then they changed theirs at some point in the 80s.

pblakeney

Pross said:

Crisp manufacturers failing to agree on a common colour scheme for their flavours meaning you pick up what you think is cheese & onion and get salt & vinegar instead.

I blame Walkers as I'm sure everyone used to use green for cheese & onion then they changed theirs at some point in the 80s.

True.
Salt & Vinegar were always blue.

monkimark

I believe walkers cheese and onion were always blue and they claim to be the originator - everyone else then chose a different colour packet when they started making them for some reason.

pblakeney

monkimark said:

I believe walkers cheese and onion were always blue and they claim to be the originator - everyone else then chose a different colour packet when they started making them for some reason.

Wikipedia says that you are quite correct.
Just shows regional variations. I don't remember seeing Walkers prior to the 90s.