Charity tax good or bad idea?

Question

The way charity is funded at the moment is a joke, some charities get millions and some are barely able to survive. What i propose is to introduce a 'charity tax' so that each charity can have its fair share of peoples money. The paying population would only need to give say 10p per week, and that would make significant changes for all those involved. I could go on for ages about this so i will stop there, so please let me know what you think of my idea.

+Charities would have to apply for funding

++I got this idea when i found out that before world war 1 or 2 i forget which, charities didn't exist. Stuff like cancer research was payed for by the government. But after the war they couldn't afford to pay for this amongst other things, so they asked the population to chip in. The government decided not to go back paying for them and so the whole charity network was set up.

Answer 1

It's a good idea, EXCEPT that there are so many bogus charities out there.

Answer 2

Bad, bad, bad idea!

I'm all for charity, but I want to choose where my money goes, not leave that up to some nameless government bureaucrat. I also want to know that the money is actually accomplishing something, rather than being used for overhead, or being funneled to a friend to make them rich, or being kicked back to the bureaucrat.

Here in the States, a charity that spends only 1 dollar out of every 5 it's given on the overhead is considered pretty efficient. Can you imagine what would happen if they started getting a steady stream of money from the government, along with the requirements that they report how it was spent, where, by whom, etc? Half of that funding they receive would probably be spent on this sort of overhead. Plus, you'd cause a whole new class of people to appear, one who is incapable of living on their own without the support of the charities. In my mind, it's better to encourage them to be self-sufficient. Go do a little research on "welfare societies", and you'll see what I mean.

Sorry - this is a poor idea.

Answer 3

A charity is called a charity because they cant afford stuff. You wanna tax them... where's the charity in that...
Bad idea...

Answer 4

it truly is forbidden by skill of regulation for the government to "fund religious communities" as you place it. The splendid court hasn't replaced that. the government can furnish grants to any criminal entity inclusive of non-earnings agencies. the money might want for use for the earnings of society and not for religious purposes. So if my church desires to restoration a leaky roof at a public college, they might request some money from the government to purchase components. it truly isn't any longer proper what org is doing the paintings, as long simply by fact the paintings is secular. That being pronounced, i do no longer think of "charities" might desire to apply taxes in any respect. that's what i admire terrific approximately charities, they might desire to convince you to furnish them money to do something, governments only take your cash and spend it on issues you will possibly no longer comply with. yet whilst our government is going to furnish tax money too charities, it is going to furnish them to all charities - even those run by skill of church homes.

Answer 5

Who would decide which charities get what monies? People like to decide where their charity money goes, so I don't think your idea will fly.

Answer 6

bun that i dont like paying taxes already and you say that I pay more for charities. don't get me wrong I donate time and again to certain charities but some I don't agree with.

Answer 7

no... bad idea... just imagine cutting off a chunk from American Idol's famous Giving back charity... it would be like... a helluva lot of money, no... i don't think so

Answer 8

The idea is good

Answer 9

horrible idea

Answer 10

it would not even remotely work..