Jade Sharp Kilimanjaro charity climb.

[Bayingblade]

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.

No need to apologise Phil, I found out where you were coming from and agreed. We may agree to differ but I have to say, I am a fan of being able to choose where my hard earned goes and how much of it goes there rather than relying on some chap in Westminster to decide. Daft as it sounds, I probably give more than the chap from London would take from me anyway!

 

[Ball_Sup (Phil)]

No need to apologise Phil, I found out where you were coming from and agreed. We may agree to differ but I have to say, I am a fan of being able to choose where my hard earned goes and how much of it goes there rather than relying on some chap in Westminster to decide. Daft as it sounds, I probably give more than the chap from London would take from me anyway!

I used to be Editor of a National Statistics publication called Social Trends. As all of you can plainly see from my posts on a wide variety of subjects, I had the intellect & drive to be incredibly successful & wealthy in whatever field I chose. But, I sacrificed that opportunity so that I could serve the taxpayer & be rewarded by knowing I had done my bit. I was the Chap from London...

 

[Prestonblade5]

So errr are you guys going to donate and bid for the shirt then?

 

[Ball_Sup (Phil)]

I'm out....

 

[Bayingblade]

I used to be Editor of a National Statistics publication called Social Trends. As all of you can plainly see from my posts on a wide variety of subjects, I had the intellect & drive to be incredibly successful & wealthy in whatever field I chose. But, I sacrificed that opportunity so that I could serve the taxpayer & be rewarded by knowing I had done my bit. I was the Chap from London...

Then why didn't you put the money where you wanted?

 

[Ball_Sup (Phil)]

Then why didn't you put the money where you wanted?

I did Pal..... (pats back pocket.....)

 

[Steve Mackan]

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.

It's not as bad as teenagers fundraising so that they can go and 'discover themselves' whilst handing out biros to orphaned kids in Tanzania who already have biros thank you very much. Although I don't doubt that the motivation is heartfelt.

Just don't think you can cure the ills of private property by small-timers chucking what little private property they have, at a problem that needs big bucks to solve.

 

[Snowman]

I used to be Editor of a National Statistics publication called Social Trends. As all of you can plainly see from my posts on a wide variety of subjects, I had the intellect & drive to be incredibly successful & wealthy in whatever field I chose. But, I sacrificed that opportunity so that I could serve the taxpayer & be rewarded by knowing I had done my bit. I was the Chap from London...

But worrabout bequests via will? Them wi nowt to leave don't leave it. Them wi some do.

 

[Ball_Sup (Phil)]

But worrabout bequests via will? Them wi nowt to leave don't leave it. Them wi some do.

I'm leaving enough for the Carrier Bag Firm to buy a photocopier
The rest I'll leave to the Exchequer
That's what I prefer.

 

[HodgysBrokenThumb]

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.

But as a percentage of income, the super-rich often pay less. Nobody pays national insurance above a certain level, and there are many legal ways of avoiding income tax. VAT brings in as much as income-tax (I think), and as a percentage of income affects the poor much more. And of course so many of the largest companies pay virtually no tax, whereas small businesses do. The share of the wealth owned by the top 1% has gone up substantially, which suggests that they could afford more; they also spend a smaller percentage of their income in the local economy. The odds very much favour those who have wealth.

 

[Bayingblade]

But as a percentage of income, the super-rich often pay less. Nobody pays national insurance above a certain level, and there are many legal ways of avoiding income tax. VAT brings in as much as income-tax (I think), and as a percentage of income affects the poor much more. And of course so many of the largest companies pay virtually no tax, whereas small businesses do. The share of the wealth owned by the top 1% has gone up substantially, which suggests that they could afford more; they also spend a smaller percentage of their income in the local economy. The odds very much favour those who have wealth.

Yes. And? They’ve earned it. They can do what they like with it.

Do some digging and you’ll find the biggest philanthropists on the planet are among the super rich.

 

[SteveBlade]

Well I'm poor and I bought a sausage roll for a homeless bloke once.

This turned into the most shithouse thread I've ever read.

 

[HodgysBrokenThumb]

Yes. And? They’ve earned it. They can do what they like with it.

Do some digging and you’ll find the biggest philanthropists on the planet are among the super rich.

They've acquired it. Whether they have earned it is another matter... The biggest philanthropists in terms of volume of money are inevitably the super-rich (you can't give money away if you have none), but money donated often goes to pet projects, and may involve self-promotion, etc.

 

[HodgysBrokenThumb]

Well I'm poor and I bought a sausage roll for a homeless bloke once.

This turned into the most shithouse thread I've ever read.

There's obviously a lot you've never read...

 

[Ball_Sup (Phil)]

Important things
Supporting those with Mental Health issues
or funding Cancer Research
Relying on philanthropists
The super rich
Fuck that...
Tax money - fair share - yes please
No more rattling boxes... It's too important

 

[Bashar Al Asaba]

Gladly donated.

Nice quick process.

Mainly because I didn't fuck about philosophising about the nature of charity in the age of austerity.

 

[Ball_Sup (Phil)]

Gladly donated.

Nice quick process.

Mainly because I didn't fuck about philosophising about the nature of charity in the age of austerity.

I don't give a fuck about philosophising about the nature of austerity in the age of charity
Same words in a different order.

 

[s4-blade]

Well I'm poor and I bought a sausage roll for a homeless bloke once.

This turned into the most shithouse thread I've ever read.

I did similar once. And a bottle of water for his dog out of the change. Fancy a debate on the morals of buying sausage rolls? Should homeless men have dogs?

 

[BushBlade]

Important things
Supporting those with Mental Health issues
or funding Cancer Research
Relying on philanthropists
The super rich
Fuck that...
Tax money - fair share - yes please
No more rattling boxes... It's too important

Whilst I don’t disagree with what you’re saying, the reality is these things don’t get adequate funding so you can either accept that and do nowt or accept it and give money. It’s not going to change any time soon.

 

[HodgysBrokenThumb]

Whilst I don’t disagree with what you’re saying, the reality is these things don’t get adequate funding so you can either accept that and do nowt or accept it and give money. It’s not going to change any time soon.

Sad, but true. There's an item in the papers today about a replacement for the St Tropez lifeboat, which they still need to raise another 200,000 euros for. They contacted all the owners of the big yachts moored there, and got (from just one owner of a small yacht) 10,000 euros. And 2 of the owners had their children rescued by the old lifeboat recently, without so much as a thank-you...

 

[Ball_Sup (Phil)]

Whilst I don’t disagree with what you’re saying, the reality is these things don’t get adequate funding so you can either accept that and do nowt or accept it and give money. It’s not going to change any time soon.

I take the point
But they do get adequate funding. The money is out there. As a country we can afford it....
It's just that we collect some of the money for funding via taxation & some via charity.
Why do that?
Why not make it all charity?
Or all taxation?
That's the bit I don't understand
Sorry

 

[broomhillblade]

How many millions - or is it billions - have been raised for cancer research over the years?
How much progress has actually been made?
Have we got value for our money or is it a bottomless pit - a nice little earner for researchers and drug companies?

 

[BushBlade]

How many millions - or is it billions - have been raised for cancer research over the years?
How much progress has actually been made?
Have we got value for our money or is it a bottomless pit - a nice little earner for researchers and drug companies?

When I was a kid, cancer was a guaranteed death sentence. So progress has certainly been made.

 

[broomhillblade]

When I was a kid, cancer was a guaranteed death sentence. So progress has certainly been made.

I don't want to be too negative about this, but the mainstay of cancer treatment today (apart from surgery) is the unpleasant chemotherapy and/or radiotherapy - which have been used since the middle of the last century, so not a lot has changed. We keep being told about potential 'breakthroughs', and new drugs come on the market, but I think it is reasonable to ask whether the millions of money given to cancer charities has really given value for money. Meanwhile worldwide sales of the top 10 cancer drugs amount to around £40 billion per year. Are the drug companies really keen to find that 'magic bullet' that will cure cancer - if indeed such a thing exists?

 

[stringer]

This is why Jade is climbing Kilimanjaro.

https://www.thestar.co.uk/news/how-...ild-as-she-scales-mount-kilimanjaro-1-9304880

 

[Ldn_Rd_Blades]

I’d like to sherpa

 

[Th!stledo]

This is why Jade is climbing Kilimanjaro.

https://www.thestar.co.uk/news/how-...ild-as-she-scales-mount-kilimanjaro-1-9304880

I don't share the views of a lot of what's been said on this thread. But I understand the point they are making and respect their right to express their opinions.

I do however sympathise with Billy and Jade ... and all the others who have had to go through the pain and suffering they have gone through.

Sometimes even football has to take a backseat to situations in life. I admire all the work the Sharp's do for their cause and understand it is part of their self-healing and coping with their tragedy. Good luck with your venture Jade and my respect to both you and Billy.

 

[alcoblade]

I take the point
But they do get adequate funding. The money is out there. As a country we can afford it....
It's just that we collect some of the money for funding via taxation & some via charity.
Why do that?
Why not make it all charity?
Or all taxation?
That's the bit I don't understand
Sorry

Whatever our position on it, no matter how much money is handed over via tax, there will always be a charity justifying the need for more.

 

[Cerberus Blade]

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.

And do you know how much of your money goes to help improve the lives of cancer patients and how much of it goes to running a huge corporate business and paying the salaries of it’s well paid Executives and massive overheads and expenses on things like marketing and advertising? Funding them to live the high life and in some cases abuse their position of authority?

This is my gripe with big charity foundations. I’d much rather give that money to St Luke’s or Sheffield Children’s Hospital personally.

It’s also not about “tin-rattling”. It’s about setting up standing orders nowadays and being harassed for more every few weeks.

I’d stop this charity mugging (chugging) at a stroke if I could. I’d take from taxes and ensure the majority of it goes to those who need it. I’d also take it from National Lottery money - which is, after all, a form of tax for the lower social classes.

 

[robbiez666]

When I was a kid, cancer was a guaranteed death sentence. So progress has certainly been made.

This. There is currently no cure for all cancer but many forms are now treatable and preventable by early diagnosis. The progress there saves so many lives.