Jade Sharp Kilimanjaro charity climb.

[Prestonblade5]

Billy Sharps wife Jade is climbing Kilimanjaro along with her 7 friends and it’s all for a great cause. She’s aunctioning off a signed Sheff Utd shirt. I’ve copied the link in below, you can bid on the shirt and find out more about the climb. If you’d like to donate I’m sure it would be very much appreciated by Jade and her family.


https://www.gofundme.com/team-250-k...board_a&rcid=bfcd84b9e14b4f379371fe9cea5dc4b6

 

[PeterNdlovu081]

She'll never make it.

Wrong side of 30 and her legs have gone.

 

[Jon Bon II]

Tin hat on here but are these 'climbers' paying for their own travel expenses and costs or are those being deducted from any money raised?

It's like those charity skydives that people are always wanting sponsorship for -

'Will you sponsor me? I'm trying to raise money for (insert charideee name here)? I'm doing a skydive to raise funds'
'Cool, how much have you got?'
'I've got £250 so far. I need to raise another £50 by the deadline tomorrow teatime.'
'Great, your charity will really welcome that £300. Is there a cost for doing the skydive?'
'Erm...er..yes..... er... £300?'

 

[gavtheblade]

Glttlass.

 

[Ball_Sup (Phil)]

I'm against the charitisation of key services like the support for those with Mental Health problems. They should be funded from taxation & I'd be very happy to pay much more tax to see that & many other services better funded & improved. Relying on rattling tins to help those with Health issues is medieval & a very large step backwards for the country.
Too many Florence Nightingales, not enough Robin Hoods...

 

[Hodgesleftpeg]

Tin hat on here but are these 'climbers' paying for their own travel expenses and costs or are those being deducted from any money raised?

It's like those charity skydives that people are always wanting sponsorship for -

'Will you sponsor me? I'm trying to raise money for (insert charideee name here)? I'm doing a skydive to raise funds'
'Cool, how much have you got?'
'I've got £250 so far. I need to raise another £50 by the deadline tomorrow teatime.'
'Great, your charity will really welcome that £300. Is there a cost for doing the skydive?'
'Erm...er..yes..... er... £300?'

Completely agree.

I’ve ran the New York marathon three times for charity. You have to raise a minimum of £1,500, if you raise over £2,000 the charity will give you £700 towards the cost of you getting there.
I more than raised that each time. Never took any money from the charity. It’s my choice to run that marathon, it comes out of my own pocket.

 

[broomhillblade]

She'll never make it.

Wrong side of 30 and her legs have gone.

Joking apart, altitude sickness is the main hazard (and can be potentially fatal). It affects people differently, and is not dependant on how fit they are. Taking it slowly and taking time to acclimatise helps. You don't need special climbing skills to do Kili. It is basically a long walk through some amazing scenery.

 

[Yellarbellyblade]

I'm against the charitisation of key services like the support for those with Mental Health problems. They should be funded from taxation & I'd be very happy to pay much more tax to see that & many other services better funded & improved. Relying on rattling tins to help those with Health issues is medieval & a very large step backwards for the country.
Too many Florence Nightingales, not enough Robin Hoods...

Respect your view but disagree. The fact that people get off their arses and do stuff like this increases community spirit and raises the profile of sometimes little known conditions. In an ideal world all health care issues would be covered by taxation but the reality is that the money would always follow those conditions or diseases that impact on the largest proportion of society meaning that serious but more limited in terms of numbers impacted would always suffer from a lack of funding

 

[YES Blade]

Tin hat on here but are these 'climbers' paying for their own travel expenses and costs or are those being deducted from any money raised?

It's like those charity skydives that people are always wanting sponsorship for -

'Will you sponsor me? I'm trying to raise money for (insert charideee name here)? I'm doing a skydive to raise funds'
'Cool, how much have you got?'
'I've got £250 so far. I need to raise another £50 by the deadline tomorrow teatime.'
'Great, your charity will really welcome that £300. Is there a cost for doing the skydive?'
'Erm...er..yes..... er... £300?'

I agree with this, climbing Kilimanjaro is something many people would love to do and it shouldn't be funded in the name of raising money for charity.

Anything that is a hobby (e.g. skydiving) or a holiday (e.g. Kilimanjaro, Cycling over Europe etc.) doesn't get my money I'm afraid.

 

[Ball_Sup (Phil)]

Respect your view but disagree. The fact that people get off their arses and do stuff like this increases community spirit and raises the profile of sometimes little known conditions. In an ideal world all health care issues would be covered by taxation but the reality is that the money would always follow those conditions or diseases that impact on the largest proportion of society meaning that serious but more limited in terms of numbers impacted would always suffer from a lack of funding

Respect your view & broadly agree
Celebrities & events to raise awareness of particular issues (for eg particular health issues) are important
I also recognise the Community spirit point you make.
Broadly, we are a progressive tax country. Those who earn & own more money/wealth, pay more in taxes. We don't all pay a flat £5,000 for eg.
Charity for Health Services is regressive. The "burden" of paying falls more on those who can least afford it.
Charity means those who could afford to pay for our (eg Mental Health) Services don't have to.

Aren't you saying - the money is out there to pay for essential Health Services, but we'll have to collect some of it by Charity rather than Taxation? I don't get that....

Paying your taxes. Saving other people's lives & keeping their children safe with that money. That's Community Spirit as well....

 

[Bayingblade]

I'm against the charitisation of key services like the support for those with Mental Health problems. They should be funded from taxation & I'd be very happy to pay much more tax to see that & many other services better funded & improved. Relying on rattling tins to help those with Health issues is medieval & a very large step backwards for the country.
Too many Florence Nightingales, not enough Robin Hoods...

But not everyone would be happy to "pay much more tax" or could afford to, Phil. If people are happy to contribute, they can do so voluntarily and even choose where the money goes. I contribute monthly to Cancer Research and am happy to do so knowing my money goes to the cause of my choosing. I would rather do this then pay an extra £X per month in tax and not know where the money was going or even worse, go to somewhere I did not want it to.

 

[Ball_Sup (Phil)]

But not everyone would be happy to "pay much more tax" or could afford to, Phil. If people are happy to contribute, they can do so voluntarily and even choose where the money goes. I contribute monthly to Cancer Research and am happy to do so knowing my money goes to the cause of my choosing. I would rather do this then pay an extra £X per month in tax and not know where the money was going or even worse, go to somewhere I did not want it to.

Respect that
But, I always feel the same when I hear about "Cancer Research"
How the fuck have we got to the position where something as important as Cancer Research relies on tins being rattled?

 

[Birdwell Blade]

Wow this has turned serious

 

[Yellarbellyblade]

Respect your view & broadly agree
Celebrities & events to raise awareness of particular issues (for eg particular health issues) are important
I also recognise the Community spirit point you make.
Broadly, we are a progressive tax country. Those who earn & own more money/wealth, pay more in taxes. We don't all pay a flat £5,000 for eg.
Charity for Health Services is regressive. The "burden" of paying falls more on those who can least afford it.
Charity means those who could afford to pay for our (eg Mental Health) Services don't have to.

Aren't you saying - the money is out there to pay for essential Health Services, but we'll have to collect some of it by Charity rather than Taxation? I don't get that....

Paying your taxes. Saving other people's lives & keeping their children safe with that money. That's Community Spirit as well....

I take your point and if the tax system was clearer about where your money goes then people might be more willing to pay more for health but that isn’t how it works and an opt in opt out about different parts of government spending would be chaos. We just have to get the people in power you as an individual trust to spend your taxes most wisely. Until then voluntary donations at least gives you as an individual power to decide

 

[Bayingblade]

Respect that
But, I always feel the same when I hear about "Cancer Research"
How the fuck have we got to the position where something as important as Cancer Research relies on tins being rattled?

Because people are living longer, people are being diagnosed sooner and more efficiently and people are surviving multiple bouts of cancer. Probably as a result of money raised through organisations such as Cancer Research. Unfortunately, the funding for all the services we need (or want) these days is not a bottomless pit.

 

[Maidenhead]

Just to say that I broadly agree with Ball_Sup (Phil) Yellarbellyblade and Bayingblade

but my only point of disagreement was the assertion that not everyone could afford to pay more tax, because as a tax payer I always could have done even if it meant 2 less beers a week.

I may be financially comfortable now, but that hasn't always been the case.

My biggest beef is how that extra tax is spent.

If it was spent on helping people in need (of all nationalities, race, religion or creed) instead of bombing them then maybe we wouldn't need to raise so much extra.​

I make regular monthly donations to charities of my choice too.

 

[Ball_Sup (Phil)]

Because people are living longer, people are being diagnosed sooner and more efficiently and people are surviving multiple bouts of cancer. Probably as a result of money raised through organisations such as Cancer Research. Unfortunately, the funding for all the services we need (or want) these days is not a bottomless pit.

But Bayingblade
The good news is the research has been funded, the money must be out there, funding is being found.
So, there isn't an argument that we (as a country) can't afford it - we clearly can.
I'd prefer a simple tax & spend system. Tax all of us, those who have more, pay more, spend it on things that matter - like Cancer Research.

I'm a dreamer ...... (apparently)

 

[Bayingblade]

But Bayingblade
The good news is the research has been funded, the money must be out there, funding is being found.
So, there isn't an argument that we (as a country) can't afford it - we clearly can.
I'd prefer a simple tax & spend system. Tax all of us, those who have more, pay more, spend it on things that matter - like Cancer Research.

I'm a dreamer ...... (apparently)

Empathise Phil and in a perfect world and all that. I'm happy to have the money in my pocket and choose where it goes and how much rather than having it taken off me by a politician and given to a cause of their choosing.

Oh, and I think you'll find that those who earn more, do actually pay more

 

[Ball_Sup (Phil)]

Just to say that I broadly agree with Ball_Sup (Phil) Yellarbellyblade and Bayingblade

but my only point of disagreement was the assertion that not everyone could afford to pay more tax, because as a tax payer I always could have done even if it meant 2 less beers a week.

I may be financially comfortable now, but that hasn't always been the case.

My biggest beef is how that extra tax is spent.

If it was spent on helping people in need (of all nationalities, race, religion or creed) instead of bombing them then maybe we wouldn't need to raise so much extra.​

I make regular monthly donations to charities of my choice too.

I don't want to upset anyone. I hope I'm not. I'm trying to ask a simple challenge question.

Given that the money is available for absolutely essential things like Cancer Research, why do we collect it through Charity rather than Taxation?

I'm worried about doing it through Charity for two reasons. 1. It allows people to dodge their share 2. If things change, people can stop putting money in the Charity Tin & the money for Cancer Research would dry up. That seems very risky for something as important as Cancer Research.

I'll take the spirit of Maidenhead post. If we want to bomb civilians in Iraq, let's do that with a Blue Peter Appeal or Jumble Sale. Let's keep our hard earned Tax Revenue for Cancer Research

 

[Maidenhead]

But Bayingblade
The good news is the research has been funded, the money must be out there, funding is being found.
So, there isn't an argument that we (as a country) can't afford it - we clearly can.
I'd prefer a simple tax & spend system. Tax all of us, those who have more, pay more, spend it on things that matter - like Cancer Research.

I'm a dreamer ...... (apparently)

Some may say that, but you're not the only one.

Imagine

 

[Ball_Sup (Phil)]

Empathise Phil and in a perfect world and all that. I'm happy to have the money in my pocket and choose where it goes and how much rather than having it taken off me by a politician and given to a cause of their choosing.

Oh, and I think you'll find that those who earn more, do actually pay more

Really Bayingblade ?
I'll stand to be corrected. But, I understood that Charity donations fall disproportionately on the poorer in society

 

[Bayingblade]

Really Bayingblade ?
I'll stand to be corrected. But, I understood that Charity donations fall disproportionately on the poorer in society

I was talking about tax contributions, Phil.

And I have no idea about charitable donations. I guess it depends whether you measure as a proportion of income/wealth or actual amounts. I'd guess the two tell different stories.

 

[Ball_Sup (Phil)]

I was talking about tax contributions, Phil.

And I have no idea about charitable donations. I guess it depends whether you measure as a proportion of income/wealth or actual amounts. I'd guess the two tell different stories.

One of my points is that the better off in society should be paying their fair share for Mental Health support & Cancer Research. But aren't. Because those incredibly important services are being funded through Charity by the worse off in society.

 

[Hodgesleftpeg]

I'm against the charitisation of key services like the support for those with Mental Health problems. They should be funded from taxation & I'd be very happy to pay much more tax to see that & many other services better funded & improved. Relying on rattling tins to help those with Health issues is medieval & a very large step backwards for the country.
Too many Florence Nightingales, not enough Robin Hoods...

I agree with you, to a certain extent..
Rattling tins tends not to do it for me.

But.... somebody putting themselves through pain for charity, I’ll always give to.

I’m not a marathon runner, or wasn’t. They hurt, a lot. But I’ve been very fortunate to have very generous contributions to the charities I’ve ran for and raised over £20,000 for them.

Tax the multi million bastards for corporation tax.. google, Starbucks, amazon etc and give that money to charity, absolutely.

But surely we all feel better about giving what we can when somebody is prepared to commit to pain.

I will always sponsor somebody who is prepared to put themselves through pain.

I certainly won’t sponsor some fucker to have a dry January or whatever month it is.

 

[Ball_Sup (Phil)]

I agree with you, to a certain extent..
Rattling tins tends not to do it for me.

But.... somebody putting themselves through pain for charity, I’ll always give to.

I’m not a marathon runner, or wasn’t. They hurt, a lot. But I’ve been very fortunate to have very generous contributions to the charities I’ve ran for and raised over £20,000 for them.

Tax the multi million bastards for corporation tax.. google, Starbucks, amazon etc and give that money to charity, absolutely.

But surely we all feel better about giving what we can when somebody is prepared to commit to pain.

I will always sponsor somebody who is prepared to put themselves through pain.

I certainly won’t sponsor some fucker to have a dry January or whatever month it is.

No worries in respecting that view. Not for me though. My wallet wouldn't twitch in the slightest because someone is "prepared to put themselves through pain".
I'd be more tempted if they did something creative.
Different views, that's how the World turns.
Poor that you've brought Beer in to the argument though....... (winks)

 

[Bayingblade]

One of my points is that the better off in society should be paying their fair share for Mental Health support & Cancer Research. But aren't. Because those incredibly important services are being funded through Charity by the worse off in society.

Depends what you call their "fair share" Phil. According to The Institute for Fiscal Studies, the top 1% of earners contribute 27% of income tax and the top 10% of earners pay 59% of all income tax receipts. The bottom 50% contribute just 10% of income tax. The share of tax receipts from the top 1% has actually increased by 2% since 2011.

The government has also significantly increased the tax threshold and as a result many very low income earners don't actually pay income tax and pretty much all of the low paid pay very little.This would suggest that the government has actually been doing exactly what you say they should and sort of contradicts those who argue the tories are cutting taxes for the rich given that they have overseen these tax receipt rises.

Given that the wealthiest among us also have a significant amount to spend, I would probably suggest they pay more than their fair share of VAT, Council tax, fuel duty and property tax too.

It seems they did listen to you after all.

 

[Ball_Sup (Phil)]

I'd like stricter enforcement of tax rules
And fewer sweetheart deals for Google, Starbucks, etc
But, I'm fairly comfortable that all of us, better off, worse off, pay "our fair share" of Taxation.
There are tweaks I'd like, but we have a pretty decent taxation regime.
That is why I'm a supporter of funding Mental Health support and Cancer Research out of taxation.
But, donations to Charity fall disproportionately on the poorer people.
By funding Mental Health support and Cancer Research from Charity, poorer people are overpaying.
Poorer people are overpaying
The better off aren't getting their round in
Overpaying. Paying too much. It's not fair. Overpaying. I'm repeating for effect....

 

[Bayingblade]

I'd like stricter enforcement of tax rules
And fewer sweetheart deals for Google, Starbucks, etc
But, I'm fairly comfortable that all of us, better off, worse off, pay "our fair share" of Taxation.
There are tweaks I'd like, but we have a pretty decent taxation regime.
That is why I'm a supporter of funding Mental Health support and Cancer Research out of taxation.
But, donations to Charity fall disproportionately on the poorer people.
By funding Mental Health support and Cancer Research from Charity, poorer people are overpaying.
Poorer people are overpaying
The better off aren't getting their round in
Overpaying. Paying too much. It's not fair. Overpaying. I'm repeating for effect....

Depends how you measure your statement that "donations to charity fall disproportionately on the poorer people", Phil.

According to the Institute for Social Change, you are correct. But donations (2012 figures, the latest I could find) from the more wealthy among us were 5 times those of the poorer. So while the poorer may donate a larger share of their income, the wealthy actually donate more. And this is by choice, don't forget. There is no obligation on the poorer to donate the amounts they do, or indeed on the wealthy, unlike tax!

 

[Fulwood Blade]

too clever by half

UTB

 

[Ball_Sup (Phil)]

Depends how you measure your statement that "donations to charity fall disproportionately on the poorer people", Phil.

According to the Institute for Social Change, you are correct. But donations (2012 figures, the latest I could find) from the more wealthy among us were 5 times those of the poorer. So while the poorer may donate a larger share of their income, the wealthy actually donate more. And this is by choice, don't forget. There is no obligation on the poorer to donate the amounts they do, or indeed on the wealthy, unlike tax!

Sorry Bayingblade
I should have made it plain throughout that I meant (something along the lines of) .... the poorer in society donate a larger share of their income to charity than the better off.
And, of course, they are under no legal obligation to do that.
The strongest I'll go is ...... there may be some peer pressure & stigma obligation though.
And, I feel that the argument that there is another way, it doesn't have to be charity is not always aired.