I was bemused by most charities at the event I spoke at last night.
I put forward a proposal that would increase the total funding for charity.
They said they'r rather keep the lower funding wealthy philanthropists provide now.
And they very emphatically did not want government match funding of all gifts instead of the somewhat lower amount that gift aid gives now because that, they said, would make that funding government spending and subject therefore to government whim.
Tax relief is government spending.
And as the current proposal shows, that relief is very much the subject of whim.
Try as I might I could find no logic at all in the argument of those opposing my idea, and I was left with the feeling that all they want is the status quo.
And that's not what charities should desire.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
Perhaps it is easier for charities to focus their attentions on a few high-earning individuals who a) have the most disposable income, and b) come with a large taxpayer-funded incentive. Under a plan such as yours, charities would have to appeal to a broader section of society, which would be more difficult for them resource-wise.
Alternatively it might mean charities were more in touch with society
Yes, much better that they appeal to all rather than just the interests of high-earners.
You could find no logic, Richard, because your ideas are centred on change -albeit one that would make charitable giving equitable, and, as you demonstrate, more ‘profitable’ to charities, if that’s the right way to put it.
But if you look at this from another perspective the logic is obvious. The charity sector is an industry, and has been for a long time. It is, in other words, part of a deeply embedded and institutionalised system, with its own history and culture, which is, in turn, a dimension of the broader and deeper history and culture of social welfare in the UK (and now more widely) and thus of politics and power. Maintaining the status quo is thus both necessary and logical, although I accept that there are exceptions that prove this rule.
However, I’d hope that there were people at the event you spoke at – and beyond – who do recognise the validity of what you (and Polly Toynbee, and a few others) are saying, even if they dare not admit it publicly. It’ll be interesting to see if anyone associated with a charity that’s recognised as more progressive/left has the balls to break ranks.
Ivan
I know of some charities who like my idea and who have refused to associate with the CAF position
Your view of charity does painfully accord with the perpective I have formed of some – and I see a lot of this sector
I’m painfully aware that some also have little interest in solving their problems. After all, seems to be the thinking, why make yourself redundant?
I will get backing for my view
Richard
Rather than because they’re cleaving to the philanthropists for ideological reasons, I expect that for most, it’s simple inertia; trying to recover what you had usually wins out over changing to a system which as yet hasn’t been proven. When your salary depends on that ‘what you had’, its easier and seems the less risky gambit in a sector in which risk aversion tends to out.