is charity wrong?

[thedudeinthehat]

this is a possibly dangerous view but id like to hear some feedback-

1.
charity as a concept is a very useful concept for the irish govt. Does anyone feel it odd that our childrens hospital, crumlin is so often fund raising? We pay our taxes- (i agree we pay low tax) so why is the hospital required to fund raise all year round. A few years back i helped raise a few thousand for the Crumlin charity, and i guess it goes towards something useful.

But should this not be taken care of by govt. It seems that the existence of charity allows for govt and indeed society to take a step back from responsibility for delivering basic services. Think of many of the functions of charities in this nation- homelessness, cancer, child protection, victims of crime, care of the elderly. Should not the govt be covering these as bare necessities- and staffing these services with appropriate professionals? Instead we are made to feel guilty for not donating to the many many charities.


So from an governmental point of view- charity allows govt to reduce services and hope that charity will take over. Look at the local action groups established where hospital services have being withdrawn in the northwest.


2.

Secondly from an economic theory point of view- until the recent crash- many on the right advocated the removal of public services- to be replaced by philanthrophy! Why was this popular with the right? First it meant lower taxes! Any donations were tax deductible. Gordon brown and george bush had publicly celebrated the rise of philanthropy as a more efficient delivery of services. However recent reports by the guardian have shown the level of philanthropy collapsing in both countries as the crisis deepened. Imagine if instead of social welfare we were relying on the likes of seanie fitz setting up a soup kitchen or building tenaments for the homeless on his land.

Look what happened during the famine when there was minimum govt intervention and a reliance on private charity. The popularity of philanthropy in the states, the worlds most unequal society, should serve as a warning to Ireland where in recent years the growth of the charity ball, public events where stars made donations, or the aportioning of fragments of huge inheritances to charity was applauded, rather then questioning the low rate of inheritance tax.

3.


My third critique is on what is known as the charity industry. For this i would highlight two individuals. John O' Shea and Fergus Finlay. Some people spend a career moving from one charity to another, often to whichever charity is at that time in vogue.


It tells alot about a society , by which charities do well. In the U.S, the most successful organisations are the ones that encourage self help, or pulling yourself up by the boot straps. In the middle east- it is education and the spread of religious organisations. Ireland too had its missionaries . And trocaire. Note too the prominence of famine and poverty alleivance. Nowadays, befitting our catholic culture, the protection of children, family issues are prominent. The problem is that some issues can become fashionable. Lately its cancer, due in part to the jade effect. But in consequence, Africa is suffering- as are womens organisations. And then one form of cancer can trump another. Note the success of the pink industry- breast cancer- which is highly associated with women. For male sufferers of breast cancer, how do they fit in to this highly feminised image? Colon cancer is not as glamorous- and obviously does not have fashion lines and colourful ribbons.

From a personal point of view- I'im just recovering from a rare blood cancer after a years treatment. Now i always donated to charities in the past. But here is the bite. During my own treatment, none of the cancer charity services were needed. Any information is discoverable on internet info sites, or chat rooms where other patients share their knowledge. Alot of staff at certain charities - not all- have not got the disease- and though of course they are helpful and knowledgeable- they often cant have the understanding of a fellow sufferer. I acknowledge that they do provide night nurses and a hospice service. But as above- shouldnt this be provided by the state. I just found that as great as these charities are in theory- and the staff are no doubt fantastic- i did not need them. But ill be careful here- they do need us.
4.


Finally- there is the issue of delivery. I had a direct debit once- to a charity. The question arises as to what per centage is spent at where it was intended by the donator. A table of per centage delivery should be produced, highlighting charities with low admin and entertainment costs. I think such a table should be publically available every year. And be independently verified. We have all seen the number of paid agents who aggresively sell their charity on the streets or calling door to door.

On a side note- I acknowledge that the act of charity in itself has some sort of psychological benefit. For the giver, the charity worker, and im not so sure for the receiver. Instead I think we should feel that way about paying taxes- as they provide a similar service. But people feel fine to publicly celebrate a donation- ie a wealthy function - as seen in the sunday independent gossip pages- and in the same paper complain of punitive taxes. Without realising they are two roads to the one destination. Think of Bono. Think of the penny apples dude. Anyway. Thats my stream of consciousness on paper.

[PhoenixIreland]

Edit your post to make it look like this:



..then we can read and reply!

[thedudeinthehat]

sorry . On mobile phones there is no formattin. When i get home ill edit properly. Apologies again.

[Didimus]

sorry . On mobile phones there is no formattin. When i get home ill edit properly. Apologies again.

Respect to the thumbs

[20000miles]

Reminds me of:


no God I wouldnt give a snap of my two fingers for all their learning why dont they go and create something I often asked him atheists or whatever they call themselves go and wash the cobbles off themselves first then they go howling for the priest and they dying and why why because theyre afraid of hell on account of their bad conscience ah yes I know them well who was the first person in the universe before there was anybody that made it all who ah that they dont know neither do I so there you are they might as well try to stop the sun from rising tomorrow the sun shines for you he said the day we were lying among the rhododendrons on Howth head in the grey tweed suit and his straw hat the day I got him to propose to me yes first I gave him the bit of seedcake out of my mouth and it was leapyear like now yes 16 years ago my God after that long kiss I near lost my breath yes he said was a flower of the mountain yes so we are flowers all a womans body yes that was one true thing he said in his life and the sun shines for you today yes that was why I liked him because I saw he understood or felt what a woman is and I knew I could always get round him and I gave him all the pleasure I could leading him on till he asked me to say yes and I wouldnt answer first only looked out over the sea and the sky I was thinking of so many things he didnt know of Mulvey and Mr Stanhope and Hester and father and old captain Groves and the sailors playing all birds fly and I say stoop and washing up dishes they called it on the pier and the sentry in front of the governors house with the thing round his white helmet poor devil half roasted and the Spanish girls laughing in their shawls and their tall combs and the auctions in the morning the Greeks and the jews and the Arabs and the devil knows who else from all the ends of Europe and Duke street and the fowl market all clucking outside Larby Sharans and the poor donkeys slipping half asleep and the vague fellows in the cloaks asleep in the shade on the steps and the big wheels of the carts of the bulls and the old castle thousands of years old yes and those handsome Moors all in white and turbans like kings asking you to sit down in their little bit of a shop and Ronda with the old windows of the posadas glancing eyes a lattice hid for her lover to kiss the iron and the wineshops half open at night and the castanets and the night we missed the boat at Algeciras the watchman going about serene with his lamp and O that awful deepdown torrent O and the sea the sea crimson sometimes like fire and the glorious sunsets and the figtrees in the Alameda gardens yes and all the queer little streets and pink and blue and yellow houses and the rosegardens and the jessamine and geraniums and cactuses and Gibraltar as a girl where I was a Flower of the mountain yes when I put the rose in my hair like the Andalusian girls used or shall I wear a red yes and how he kissed me under the Moorish wall and I thought well as well him as another and then I asked him with my eyes to ask again yes and then he asked me would I yes to say yes my mountain flower and first I put my arms around him yes and drew him down Jo me so he could feel my breasts all perfume yes and his heart was going like mad and yes I said yes I will Yes.

[femmefatale]

You do make some interesting points. It's true that charity shouldn't be an alternative to properly funded public services. It's also true that people can indulge in public acts of (false) charity for their own reward and recognition. I still think charity is important though. It's an expression of love and concern for others and often helps to raise awareness and sometimes shame government (and inter-governmental) bodies into doing more.

[thedudeinthehat]

this is a possibly dangerous view but id like to hear some feedback-

1.
charity as a concept is a very useful concept for the irish govt. Does anyone feel it odd that our childrens hospital, crumlin is so often fund raising? We pay our taxes- (i agree we pay low tax) so why is the hospital required to fund raise all year round. A few years back i helped raise a few thousand for the Crumlin charity, and i guess it goes towards something useful.

But should this not be taken care of by govt. It seems that the existence of charity allows for govt and indeed society to take a step back from responsibility for delivering basic services. Think of many of the functions of charities in this nation- homelessness, cancer, child protection, victims of crime, care of the elderly. Should not the govt be covering these as bare necessities- and staffing these services with appropriate professionals? Instead we are made to feel guilty for not donating to the many many charities.


So from an governmental point of view- charity allows govt to reduce services and hope that charity will take over. Look at the local action groups established where hospital services have being withdrawn in the northwest.


2.

Secondly from an economic theory point of view- until the recent crash- many on the right advocated the removal of public services- to be replaced by philanthrophy! Why was this popular with the right? First it meant lower taxes! Any donations were tax deductible. Gordon brown and george bush had publicly celebrated the rise of philanthropy as a more efficient delivery of services. However recent reports by the guardian have shown the level of philanthropy collapsing in both countries as the crisis deepened. Imagine if instead of social welfare we were relying on the likes of seanie fitz setting up a soup kitchen or building tenaments for the homeless on his land.

Look what happened during the famine when there was minimum govt intervention and a reliance on private charity. The popularity of philanthropy in the states, the worlds most unequal society, should serve as a warning to Ireland where in recent years the growth of the charity ball, public events where stars made donations, or the aportioning of fragments of huge inheritances to charity was applauded, rather then questioning the low rate of inheritance tax.

3.


My third critique is on what is known as the charity industry. For this i would highlight two individuals. John O' Shea and Fergus Finlay. Some people spend a career moving from one charity to another, often to whichever charity is at that time in vogue.


It tells alot about a society , by which charities do well. In the U.S, the most successful organisations are the ones that encourage self help, or pulling yourself up by the boot straps. In the middle east- it is education and the spread of religious organisations. Ireland too had its missionaries . And trocaire. Note too the prominence of famine and poverty alleivance. Nowadays, befitting our catholic culture, the protection of children, family issues are prominent. The problem is that some issues can become fashionable. Lately its cancer, due in part to the jade effect. But in consequence, Africa is suffering- as are womens organisations. And then one form of cancer can trump another. Note the success of the pink industry- breast cancer- which is highly associated with women. For male sufferers of breast cancer, how do they fit in to this highly feminised image? Colon cancer is not as glamorous- and obviously does not have fashion lines and colourful ribbons.

From a personal point of view- I'im just recovering from a rare blood cancer after a years treatment. Now i always donated to charities in the past. But here is the bite. During my own treatment, none of the cancer charity services were needed. Any information is discoverable on internet info sites, or chat rooms where other patients share their knowledge. Alot of staff at certain charities - not all- have not got the disease- and though of course they are helpful and knowledgeable- they often cant have the understanding of a fellow sufferer. I acknowledge that they do provide night nurses and a hospice service. But as above- shouldnt this be provided by the state. I just found that as great as these charities are in theory- and the staff are no doubt fantastic- i did not need them. But ill be careful here- they do need us.
4.


Finally- there is the issue of delivery. I had a direct debit once- to a charity. The question arises as to what per centage is spent at where it was intended by the donator. A table of per centage delivery should be produced, highlighting charities with low admin and entertainment costs. I think such a table should be publically available every year. And be independently verified. We have all seen the number of paid agents who aggresively sell their charity on the streets or calling door to door.

On a side note- I acknowledge that the act of charity in itself has some sort of psychological benefit. For the giver, the charity worker, and im not so sure for the receiver. Instead I think we should feel that way about paying taxes- as they provide a similar service. But people feel fine to publicly celebrate a donation- ie a wealthy function - as seen in the sunday independent gossip pages- and in the same paper complain of punitive taxes. Without realising they are two roads to the one destination. Think of Bono. Think of the penny apples dude. Anyway. Thats my stream of consciousness on paper.

edited as requested....

[Mr.De-Regulation]

Public services funded by charity, means less corruptibility, better service, better community spirit and no trade unions.

America and Germany prior to 1913, and Ireland prior to British occupation.

[thedudeinthehat]

You do make some interesting points. It's true that charity shouldn't be an alternative to properly funded public services. It's also true that people can indulge in public acts of (false) charity for their own reward and recognition. I still think charity is important though. It's an expression of love and concern for others and often helps to raise awareness and sometimes shame government (and inter-governmental) bodies into doing more.

yes. I understand that charity has that function of showing social solidarity. But when I talk with my European freinds, they feel that way about higher taxes. For my German friend, they felt that way about the integration of East and West Germany. Secondly she had no sense of resentment about German tax payers contrbuting the lions share towards the E.U. They understand the nature of the social contract that taxes entail. It was something I came to understand myself during my cancer. In college I received the maintenance grant. I think at the time (2000-2004) it was 1900 euros a year. I can vouch that they had that back in one year when I began work. Then I paid tax at the higher rate since 2006. For the year I have being in chemo and radiotherapy, my employer continued to pay 60% of my wage (paid 100% for the first 6 months) and then the govt stood in after the six months and paid me the difference (roughly the 40%)

I for one think we have a strange attitude to tax in this country. If I paid my way for 3 years (not including working through college and summer work) I dont feel any guilt on receiving welfare. Secondly I find it strange that some people resent anyone who has worked and paid taxes and now is in receipt of social welfare. They have earned that right- and they should be treated as a customer (whom has paid taxes/insurance), not as a charity case. When some people mention welfare recipients, it is with the tone of resenting the person rather then the misfortune (unemployment or illness)

Why instead dont we feel that sense of love you mention, that occurs with charity, as being the same with paying tax. Its a sign of social solidarity, and gives you the entitlement to use services when you need them. That is why tax avoidance schemes bug me so much. How does charity avodiance scheme sound. Or avoiding social responsibility. Just an alternative viewpoint....

[femmefatale]

yes. I understand that charity has that function of showing social solidarity. But when I talk with my European freinds, they feel that way about higher taxes. For my German friend, they felt that way about the integration of East and West Germany. Secondly she had no sense of resentment about German tax payers contrbuting the lions share towards the E.U. They understand the nature of the social contract that taxes entail. It was something I came to understand myself during my cancer. In college I received the maintenance grant. I think at the time (2000-2004) it was 1900 euros a year. I can vouch that they had that back in one year when I began work. Then I paid tax at the higher rate since 2006. For the year I have being in chemo and radiotherapy, my employer continued to pay 60% of my wage (paid 100% for the first 6 months) and then the govt stood in after the six months and paid me the difference (roughly the 40%)

I for one think we have a strange attitude to tax in this country. If I paid my way for 3 years (not including working through college and summer work) I dont feel any guilt on receiving welfare. Secondly I find it strange that some people resent anyone who has worked and paid taxes and now is in receipt of social welfare. They have earned that right- and they should be treated as a customer (whom has paid taxes/insurance), not as a charity case. When some people mention welfare recipients, it is with the tone of resenting the person rather then the misfortune (unemployment or illness)

Why instead dont we feel that sense of love you mention, that occurs with charity, as being the same with paying tax. Its a sign of social solidarity, and gives you the entitlement to use services when you need them. That is why tax avoidance schemes bug me so much. How does charity avodiance scheme sound. Or avoiding social responsibility. Just an alternative viewpoint....

I agree with you.