Reply to: Charity beggars

[Peoplesoft bloke]

Oh, I like this bit:



"Financial Advisers" in training then.

Agents

[Churchill]

If the government introduced a mandatory charity tax on a sliding scale based on salary, they could divvy it up amongst all the charities and save people the bother of being bothered. Maybe something like:

% of income taken = 0.5*(income/10,000)^2

Some of "our lot" do that already, in fact we're second only to the National Lottery in the amount distributed to charities and good causes.

[Sysman]

As much as I think they are a pain, they are effective.

Oh, I like this bit:

They have been caught out misleading the public about how they are paid, harassing shoppers who say they are not interested, and asking donors to lie on direct debit forms to help them meet their targets.

"Financial Advisers" in training then.

[OwlHoot]

... all sorts of medical research etc.) is carried out by NGO's and charities. The government gives them large, lots-of-strings-attached donations which mean the charities toe the government line. There's very little difference between giving money to most UK-based charities and giving it to the government.

Exactly! Donating to charity is a guilt-ridden middle class mug's game.

You're just freeing up Government revenue to fund social vanity projects like all this NHS nonsense and oppressive schemes like the ID cards database.

Stop paying for the chains they'll use to shackle you! Stop giving to charity! Seriously.

[d000hg]

Agreed.

Giving to charity should be on your own terms not anyone elses.

Maybe. But if you're never reminded, you might never get round to figuring out what your terms are. Even if the Society for Seasick Ducks annoy you on the street, their presence might bring the subject of charity into your mind and lead to you finally making that decision to set up a standing order to Friends of Flightless Flamingos...

[thunderlizard]

If the government introduced a mandatory charity tax on a sliding scale based on salary, they could divvy it up amongst all the charities and save people the bother of being bothered.

They already do something similar. Lots of things that the government wants to achieve (support for people in poverty, homelessness, getting people in education, all sorts of medical research etc.) is carried out by NGO's and charities. The government gives them large, lots-of-strings-attached donations which mean the charities toe the government line. There's very little difference between giving money to most UK-based charities and giving it to the government.

[Clippy]

Interestingly that article quotes the "watchdog" encouraging people to boycott chuggers. It seems I'm not alone in finding their antics distasteful - trying to bully me into giving to charity will never work, but that's just me.

Agreed.

Giving to charity should be on your own terms not anyone elses.

[Peoplesoft bloke]

As much as I think they are a pain, they are effective.

Interestingly that article quotes the "watchdog" encouraging people to boycott chuggers. It seems I'm not alone in finding their antics distasteful - trying to bully me into giving to charity will never work, but that's just me.

[Clippy]

As much as I think they are a pain, they are effective.

[d000hg]

Fine - but I reserve the right not to give them any money to support their chugging.

Well of course that's fine. I'm just saying from their point of view it is justified even if it does irritate you slightly.

Sounds like the current government - after all, it's not as if it's our money to choose what we do with is it?

Because this government introduced the idea of TAX? I'm talking (not seriously) about a new tax, not launching a discussion on the current tax system.

[thunderlizard]

There's no need to be a git. Just say "sorry I'm not interested" without breaking stride, or walk past without answering if you must.

that's my technique too. You can be as polite and smiley as you like - just make sure you don't break stride.

[Peoplesoft bloke]

So you won't give to any charity that pays people to work for them?

You obviously didn't bother to read my post since that's not what I said.

The simple fact is most people won't think to give to charity unless someone asks them.

That sounds more like your opinion than a "simple fact" but if you have the evidence (and I don't mean "everyone knows" or "a bloke in the pub said") that supports it, I'll accept it as fact.

So from a charity's point of view, they got more donations this way, and 5s of irritation for you is less important (to them) than the cause they are championing.

Fine - but I reserve the right not to give them any money to support their chugging. Do you actually know they get more donations this way?

If the government introduced a mandatory charity tax on a sliding scale based on salary, they could divvy it up amongst all the charities and save people the bother of being bothered. Maybe something like:

% of income taken = 0.5*(income/10,000)^2

Sounds like the current government - after all, it's not as if it's our money to choose what we do with is it?

[minestrone]

Phew, made it past them tonight without incident, there was a group of them talking amongst themselves and only one was actively engaged in hassling duty.

[where did my id go?]

the chuggers are not employed by the charity. They are employed by agencies. The agencies charge a fee for every sign up.
That fee can be a years worth of donations - and is charged even if the DD is later cancelled.

In fact the chuggers can COST the charity money.

Feckers!

[d000hg]

If the government introduced a mandatory charity tax on a sliding scale based on salary, they could divvy it up amongst all the charities and save people the bother of being bothered. Maybe something like:

% of income taken = 0.5*(income/10,000)^2