What is more important paying your taxes or giving to charity?

[dikkertjedap]

What do you think?

Depends what you mean by important

lots of people manage both, it's not a one or the other

I don't see why it's an either/or really. Most people do both.

Tbh I'm unconvinced it is actually 'charity' when you give more away simply to reduce your tax bill. The fact that charities are worried the money'll stop suggests there's a lot of self interested tax avoidance rather than genuine charitable giving.

The Government have been telling the charitable sector to look to the very wealthy for more fundraising, so this cap on tax relief is a complete mess. But I think they have realized, with recent EU rulings meaning tax relief would have to be granted to all EU charities, not just UK registered ones, that the country was likely to see a loss.

Having worked in the charity sector in the US for years, where tax relief means wealthy donors are a huge part of charitable funding, I think they really distort the sector's focus. Organizations are generally much better in terms of being responsive to the populations they serve when they get lots of smaller donations than when they chase the larger ones. On the other hand, organizations without money tend to be able to do much less than those with money.

paying taxes first then charity. if everyone just gave to charity then public services would be in total dissaray as there would be no funding. i agree with the government - that people should pay tax on what they earn. I do and i don't see why millionaires and the chief exec of the company i work for shouldn't too.

Paying taxes. Charity is a choice. Wealthy people who give to charities to avoid tax can choose where their money goes. Funnily enough high profile fashionable charities like the Royal Opera House attract far more funding from wealthy patrons than charities for homeless ex-prostitutes.

What a stupid question, yes I would gladly risk a court summons for non payment of tax so I can give cash to some flea bitten old smelly homeless cats or something.

taxes - whatever i think about the government, i do trust the state to provide healthcare, policing and justice, and education more than i'd trust charities to do the same.

I agree with those who say that paying taxes is more important as tax money funds public goods. I have no idea who came with the hare brained idea to let the most wealthy people offset their charitable giving against their tax bill enabling them to pay very little tax both in relative and absolute terms.

What enrages me even more is that the majority of people don't have any choice. Only the very well off are able to use charities to avoid paying tax. I can't see how this can be in the public interest. If it really was, then the activities of these charities should be funded through general taxation.

However, no doubt a lot of money goes to things which only benefit a smallish group in society. Apparently, Cambridge and Oxford Universities get quite a lot in charitable donations, these are incredibly rich institutions, arguably it would be better if that money ended up with the tax man then the UK's deficit might be a bit lower.

I find it a very unjust approach to taxation and very short sighted as well as in the medium to long term it will not be in the UK's interest, only in the interest of a handful of individuals.

Both are a bit of a con IMO. The heads of charities are just as well paid as the heads of public sector departments. I'd prefer people were allowed to keep most of the money they worked for.

dikkert it's not just the super rich who can do this. Anyone who pays income tax can make a smaller contribution and have the basic rate of tax (a third of the cash they've given) claimed back from the government by the charity. Anyone who pays at a higher rate (about 4 million people IIRC) can also claim the additional tax back themselves.

I don't disagree with your overall point that paying taxes is more important than funding charity, though I think people may be unaware of how much of our safety net for the very worst off is provided by the charitable sector. Shelters and services for some of the most vulnerable members of society are closing at an alarming rate at the moment because they are run by charities who are having their funding hit from every direction. I don't think many of them get huge amounts from super rich philanthropists though.

It's not exactly "offsetting" their charitable giving against the tax bill. Let's say I want to give £1 million to charity (not a realistic example, I hasten to add). With the tax relief, that gift actually costs me £600,000 because I can reclaim the tax I've paid on it and give that to the charity too - which is a good deal - but it still does cost me £600,000 of real money. It's not a scam or a tax avoidance scheme unless the "charity" you're actually giving to is fraudulent, which is a whole separate problem that needs to be dealt with by regulation of charities.

I agree that paying tax is crucial to a civilised society, but I don't think cutting off reliefs for charitable giving really solves the problem, it just reduces charities' income at a time when they're supposed to be plugging the gaps in Government spending.

Gift Aid was introduced in 1990. People were giving charitable donations for centuries before then, without the need for taxpayers' assistance.
This new problem only really applies to the tax affairs of the super-rich. If a charity is that reliant on such a subsection of society then they should be rethining their fundraising strategy.

I for one am grateful this is in the headlines. Having donated small amounts to charity for years and never declared it on my tax return, I just added the numbers to this year's submission and discovered I can get some tax back. Wo-hoo!