[Durham Giant]

Emotional Taxation : Fri Nov 15, 2013 4:29 pm  

Sick and tired of charities asking for money to look after the poor in society.

Children in Need to help disadvantaged children in the UK WTF.

No it is a way of helping fooking tories and Liberals who have cut benefits, implemented regressive taxes to satiate their guilt by throwing a few shekels at the poor.

If you voted for and support all the cuts in the name of budget reduction and hoping to get a few quid in tax reductions as bribe before the next election you have no right to complain about failing services and the consequences of that. You have no right to complain about waiting times in A and E and dead children starved to death BECAUSE you are RESPONSIBLE.

Children in Need are children in need of a change in the political culture of this country to stop children being in need in the first place.

Lets watch some telly donate a tenner and then we can forget all about what is happening to the children in Britain for the next year.

Dont give in to emotional taxation make the rich pay for it.

Sod children in need and point out the hypocrisy of what it is all about. Tories giving money to look like they care

[DaveO]

Re: Emotional Taxation : Fri Nov 15, 2013 4:44 pm  

I do find it odd that Children in Need is a lot of mostly very rich people doing stuff on stage on the night urging the less well off to give from their much smaller income/savings.

I have always found rich people urging the population at large to donate patronising.

Charity and the need for it to the extent we do need it in 2013 is an interesting question.

Ordinary people doing daft things to raise money is a completely different thing but of course in an ideal world charity should be for non-essential things like various animal charities. Not for funding things like relief for young carers.

But then if we funded that from taxes we would no doubt have some idiots asking why was that essential?

The fact there are young carers in need of charity to give them relief is a double whammy in that it shows we aren't meeting the needs of the adult requiring care in the first place so I agree with what you are saying in general.

Charity ought to be something the Victorians did, not us.

Re: Emotional Taxation : Fri Nov 15, 2013 5:07 pm  

I blame Bob Geldof.

Re: Emotional Taxation : Fri Nov 15, 2013 5:48 pm  

Do as my family do - nominate one charity to give your support to, sign a direct debit for a few quid a month and then sit back with an easy conscience and when anyone shakes a collecting tin in your face just smile and say "No thank you" with no further explanation required.

Our current charity of choice for the monthly DD is Dogs Trust with an annual bike ride for our local hospice done by me and a gang of mates in memory of one of our gang who spent his final three weeks there.

I've done my bit, they can shove BBC1 tonight ...

Re: Emotional Taxation : Fri Nov 15, 2013 6:01 pm  

Durham Giant wrote: ... Dont give in to emotional taxation make the rich pay for it. Sod children in need and point out the hypocrisy of what it is all about ... Lovely idea. In the meantime, what do you suggest those same children actually eat while we're all 'making the rich pay' (by methods that you don't seem to have detailed). Your words? The Red Cross is giving out food parcels in the UK and Save the Children is spending money here for the first time. Will you also be telling people, globally, not to donate to these? Would the deaths of a few starved infants help, do you think? And if so, how many? Mind, if you want emotional blackmail, I suggest that 'cause marketing' is far worse: 'Ooo, buy these nappies and we'll donate a tetanus jab to Unicef', while the other type means that some organisations put themself into a position of a conflict of interest at best.

Durham Giant wrote: ... Dont give in to emotional taxation make the rich pay for it. Sod children in need and point out the hypocrisy of what it is all about ... Lovely idea. In the meantime, what do you suggest those same children actually eat while we're all 'making the rich pay' (by methods that you don't seem to have detailed). Your words? The Red Cross is giving out food parcels in the UK and Save the Children is spending money here for the first time. Will you also be telling people, globally, not to donate to these? Would the deaths of a few starved infants help, do you think? And if so, how many? Mind, if you want emotional blackmail, I suggest that 'cause marketing' is far worse: 'Ooo, buy these nappies and we'll donate a tetanus jab to Unicef', while the other type means that some organisations put themself into a position of a conflict of interest at best.

Re: Emotional Taxation : Fri Nov 15, 2013 6:17 pm  

The best thing would be if ALL people assets at death or held within 7 years of death went directly to charities of their choice, rather than to their kids or to HMRC in inheritance tax (wgere applicable). That way charities would be well funded, people would give back to the society that offered them the opportunity to accumulate wealth and we'd do away with the moral abomination of inherited wealth.

Re: Emotional Taxation : Fri Nov 15, 2013 7:46 pm  

Dally wrote:

The best thing would be if ALL people assets at death or held within 7 years of death went directly to charities of their choice, rather than to their kids or to HMRC in inheritance tax (wgere applicable). That way charities would be well funded, people would give back to the society that offered them the opportunity to accumulate wealth and we'd do away with the moral abomination of inherited wealth.

You will not be leaving anything to your kids then?

Re: Emotional Taxation : Sat Nov 16, 2013 7:33 am  

Dally wrote:

The best thing would be if ALL people assets at death or held within 7 years of death went directly to charities of their choice, rather than to their kids or to HMRC in inheritance tax (wgere applicable). That way charities would be well funded, people would give back to the society that offered them the opportunity to accumulate wealth and we'd do away with the moral abomination of inherited wealth.

You obviously do not have children!!

Why don't we all donate our whole earnings to the government and they can give us back a little pocket money and then divi up the rest as they feel fit? That way none of can complain - isn't that what you want?

[Durham Giant]

Re: Emotional Taxation : Sat Nov 16, 2013 9:20 am  

Mintball wrote: Lovely idea. In the meantime, what do you suggest those same children actually eat while we're all 'making the rich pay' (by methods that you don't seem to have detailed). Your words? The Red Cross is giving out food parcels in the UK and Save the Children is spending money here for the first time. Will you also be telling people, globally, not to donate to these? Would the deaths of a few starved infants help, do you think? And if so, how many? Mind, if you want emotional blackmail, I suggest that 'cause marketing' is far worse: 'Ooo, buy these nappies and we'll donate a tetanus jab to Unicef', while the other type means that some organisations put themself into a position of a conflict of interest at best. We already have starved children, half starved children children living in poverty on a day to dat basis and it is getting worse. Where are all the documentary's highlighting what is going on, Where are the film makers, Where is the new Cathy Come home, Where are the political commentators pointing out the hypocrisy of rich people asking poorer people for money to give to the really poor. In victorian times which is what we are going back to Where are the enlightened campaigners who campaign for social reform, where are the unions who campaign for workers rights and point out all of these things. Where is the political leadership which seems to concentrate on the squeezed middle and ignore the huge inequality we are experiencing. At this stage it is the battle of ideas that needs to be won and most people seem to have given up, political consciousness seems to be at an all time low as everyone decides it ise asier to follow in the mainstream. Maybe boycotting children in Need and explaining why is part of that process.

Mintball wrote: Lovely idea. In the meantime, what do you suggest those same children actually eat while we're all 'making the rich pay' (by methods that you don't seem to have detailed). Your words? The Red Cross is giving out food parcels in the UK and Save the Children is spending money here for the first time. Will you also be telling people, globally, not to donate to these? Would the deaths of a few starved infants help, do you think? And if so, how many? Mind, if you want emotional blackmail, I suggest that 'cause marketing' is far worse: 'Ooo, buy these nappies and we'll donate a tetanus jab to Unicef', while the other type means that some organisations put themself into a position of a conflict of interest at best. We already have starved children, half starved children children living in poverty on a day to dat basis and it is getting worse. Where are all the documentary's highlighting what is going on, Where are the film makers, Where is the new Cathy Come home, Where are the political commentators pointing out the hypocrisy of rich people asking poorer people for money to give to the really poor. In victorian times which is what we are going back to Where are the enlightened campaigners who campaign for social reform, where are the unions who campaign for workers rights and point out all of these things. Where is the political leadership which seems to concentrate on the squeezed middle and ignore the huge inequality we are experiencing. At this stage it is the battle of ideas that needs to be won and most people seem to have given up, political consciousness seems to be at an all time low as everyone decides it ise asier to follow in the mainstream. Maybe boycotting children in Need and explaining why is part of that process.

Re: Emotional Taxation : Sat Nov 16, 2013 9:27 am  

Well for starters, the unions are there, trying to do something, but shackled by vast amounts of legislation, fear among members and a blackout from most media unless it's a negative story.

Why not save that speech for people other than those on the Sin Bin? Perhaps set up a soapbox in your local shopping centre this morning to tell people, instead of asking where everybody else is?