General Chat

Eeyore13 -- this is about what we in Canada call "matching grants"?

I'm used to discussion boards where people start out posting a link to the news item they're discussing and quoting it, and here I have to go hunting! In this case I couldn't find anything.

"From April 2011 the Government will be reducing the amount of Gift Aid a charity can claim on donations from UK taxpayers from 28% to 25%"

I understood from this that if a charity gets donations of £1 million, the government will match it with £250,000.

This is on top of tax deductions or credits that individuals get for charitable donations, I assume. A tax deduction is a form of matching grant. You make the donation, the government loses the revenue it would get from the tax on the money you donate.

We do have matching grants here. I'm just having a bit of trouble figuring out what the rates are.

One thing that can be called a positive factor about matching grants (including tax deductions) is that individuals decide what cause to support (as long as it has official charitable status) and the public grant follows that choice. But it can leave some worthy causes underfunded. If we all give our donations to the cat shelter, the homeless shelter still needs money.

I am finding it impossible to find info about matching grants. I know that for things like the Haiti earthquake and the tsunami and so on, the government will announce a period of one or two months when it will match all donations to certain organizations, dollar for dollar.

I found something about provincial governments. Alberta is filthy rich from oil revenues, remember.

http://www.canada.com/story_print.html?id=496ab95d-1790-41aa-8245-a0ed1c3cb674&sponsor=

"Alberta is one of four provinces that matches the dollars raised by local organizations for small-scale, international aid projects. So the club's funding was doubled, thanks to Wild Rose Foundation grants from lottery revenues. This year, the Uganda program got a $10,000 matching grant.

The Wild Rose Foundation distributes $1.4 million of its annual $8-million budget for international development. That compares favourably to $385,000 in matching grants from the Saskatchewan government and about $750,000 from the Manitoba government."

(Keeping in mind that Alberta has a much larger population ...)

I guess federal matching grants are on a project basis.

I do know that the way of getting tax advantages for charitable donations changed some years ago. You used to be able to deduct the full amount of charitable donations from your taxable income. It's a lot less now.

But apparently studies show that only about half of the receipts issued by charities get used at tax time anyway!

That doesn't answer very well, does it ... But I'm not sure of the mechanics of what the British government has just announced, to compare it to.

I just wanted to add, on that bit about the Cumbrian floods. Was international assistance needed?

Here in North America, we give aid back and forth across the border all the time, in the form of people and equipment and expertise.

It took a long while for %$#@ George Bush to allow this when New Orleans was hit, but eventually the Canadian military was there doing search and rescue and purifying water, and in the meantime, the state of Louisiana had approached the province of British Columbia directly (or maybe it was city-to-city, I forget), and had teams of rescue workers go down. Canadians donated to the US Red Cross to help with the efforts, I'm sure.

When there are forest fires on the west coast, teams help across the border. When blackouts and ice storms hit on the eastern continent, teams help across the border.

We don't jump in with aid to individuals, like for flooded homes, but there is certainly mutual assistance to deal with disasters.

How do I know what "charity begins at home" means to you, JackInTheBox?

Because it was so obvious nobody could have missed it.

In a discussion of cuts to international aid, you say "Charity begins at home".

I dunno. Maybe you meant "we should increase our foreign aid budget to the level of 0.7% of GDP urged by the UN".

Some things, one just knows, doesn't one?

Y'know, once again, I have to point out that I actually didn't express an opinion about the announcement regarding UK foreign aid.

That is, I didn't claim moral superiority for myself, or my country, or boast that my country is better than yours, or even criticize your country. None of that. Not at all.

My opinion was about ugly things being said about aid recipients.



And SRS, I wasn't meaning you shouldn't duplicate! I was agreeing with you, as you had with me, even if inadvertently. ;)

Janey-I have C&P'd this as it's far clearer than I could explain

How Gift Aid works

The Gift Aid scheme is for gifts of money by individuals who pay UK tax. Gift Aid donations are regarded as having basic rate tax deducted by the donor. Charities or CASCs take your donation - which is money you've already paid tax on - and reclaim the basic rate tax from HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC) on its 'gross' equivalent - the amount before basic rate tax was deducted.

Basic rate tax is 20 per cent, so this means that if you give £10 using Gift Aid, it’s worth £12.50 to the charity. For donations between 6 April 2008 and 5 April 2011 the charity or CASC will also get a separate government supplement of three pence on every pound you give.

That is how a lot of the smaller charities survive,so 3% is a significant drop to a charities income.

Thank you for explaining your country's system-you do have to wonder why everything has to be so damn complicated

Ah, okay, so it's backwards to here.
Here, we deduct it from our taxable income, so in theory we can afford to give more.
There, you pay taxes on it and the charity gets the tax you paid. ;)

Complicated -- I was just trying to find info about rates, and I could only find scholarly papers by economists about what works best, tax deductions, matching grants ...

The tax deduction system is considered to be kind of cheating on the part of governments -- since so many people don't claim the deduction, the government isn't paying what it "should".

Your direct transfer, where the charities keep the books (so the transfer is based on how much money was actually donated, not on how much was claimed on tax returns), is a more transparent way to do it.

So it's the 3p on a pound that's being terminated. Got it.

I do acknowledge that compared to the UK any crisis in your Country is going to seem more significant taking into account the size,weather etc in Canada,however,in the UK which is tiny in comparison the floods in Cumbria were huge to us & the support was not there for those people.

We to have teams we send overseas to help in major catastrophes,dog teams for earthquakes etc but seem unable to deal with a flood in our own back yard.

I can't speak for the UK but we are in a bit of a mess here at the moment & as I said initially-how can it be fair to save money by taking it away from Charities.

My post was in reply to someone's question about whether international aid was sent for the Cumbrian floods.

(For one thing, international aid is generally only sent when it's requested -- which is why Canada couldn't get aid to New Orleans until %$#@ George Bush finally asked, despite the fact that we had planes sitting on runways ready to go.)

The impact of the Cumbrian floods would be just like the impact of the floods we get in small towns Manitoba or Quebec, no question. Local, but devastating.

We tend to call out the military for things like this -- even when Toronto got itself snowed in a few years back, the army was there digging it out. In the States, they won't have any of that, of course. The military could be sitting around doing nothing, but they can't have them interfering.

I'm certainly not disagreeing with you about the cuts.

But I wonder where people thought a right-wing government wsa going to make its cuts?

Janey, in reply to what you have said to me, not anyone else, maybe its time you got off your high moral ground, if you are so in agreement with us giving our money away, maybe stop googling, and copy and pasting, and get out there and start helping them who (in your opinion) need it. Spend your time doing something constructive!!!!!

One just thinks thats a good idea, doesnt one????

Jackinthebox how do you know Janey doesn't?

--------------------------------------------

You can't blame foreign aid for the reduction in gift aid. That is the fault of the Coalition alone. Even if the coalition did reduce foreign aid it wouldn't help the British charities one bit, the government wouldn't switch the money to British charities, it would go on something else like the deficit, for example.

Sadly that is very true Cat (sorry don't know how to put the inflections on your "a").

The size of countries does kind of influence the response & I do think usually the UK will step up for overseas issues with a "grand gesture" & it does tend to ignore or underfund problems at home.
That is the Govt & we elect them,however,I personally never imagined things could be so bad.I just hope when they sort out this "mess" they get policies in place that are effective & get this country back on its feet.

It is always going to be a personal choice which charities we give our own money to. Our governments decide whether or not to help other countries with tax revenue.

I am happy that they do so. This planet *is* my home not just this very small corner of it. I know of no one in this country in as dire straits as some in Haiti, for example. No one in this country experiences the kind of abject poverty experienced in some other countries and, as fellow human beings, the affluent nations have an obligation to help those in need.

Some charities in this country could save a great deal of money, if they chose to do so. My OH was treasurer of a local branch of a large national charity and resigned when said charity opened huge new offices in London and held a royal reception for the launch. He (and I) considered that a huge waste of resources that members worked hard to raise. We spent an entire Saturday running a jumble sale and the money we raised wouldn't even have covered the wine bill of that reception.

So now I pick and choose which charities I work for and which ones I give to. It's not hard to find out which ones waste huge amounts of money with flash offices in London and huge salaries for their staff. They obviously don't need my money.

Gwynne

Gwynne,That is exactly the sort of thing I mentioned earlier. Its such a shame that there was a lot of retoric from" Janey",totally uncalled for and completely out of context to the original posting.However it might be a good idea if the millions given in charity to places like China,India and even Russia were stopped and diverted to other places ( Including the UK ) after all they are Capable of taking care of themselves (Which they do)first and foremost. **M**.

Eeyore don't worry about the inflections, they're just there because they look nice :-)

I found Janey's posts interesting, informative and relevant seeing as overseas aid was mentioned. It's all too easy to criticise the government for giving overseas aid but the amount is small and it's easy to forget that we're talking about human beings who are living in absolute poverty. Why should they suffer further because of their government's actions.

Its all very well saying the amount given in aid is "Small" Not if you have,nt got it it is,nt. Its Borrowed Money on which interest has to be paid,and at this moment we cannot afford to do that.We should put our own house in order first, then help others when it is.**M**.

So we should leave people to die.

I agree with Cat in that what Janey said was on topic. I also believe we not only can afford it, we have an obligation to afford it. We in the affluent west cannot just let people die and ignore the suffering of our fellow human beings just because they live on another continent.

Some government officials overseas are corrupt but that doesn't mean we should stop trying to help the ordinary people who suffer. Most of the aid does get to the people who need it.

Yes, our country is in a financial mess, but the bankers will still get their bonuses, despite being the architects of the current problems. I'd rather the money went where it is really needed than lined their pockets further.

As I said, no one in this country is suffering in the same way as the poorest of the poor overseas, I don't begrudge a single penny of the overseas aid. I'm surprised that a Tory government sees it that way as well but very pleased.

Gwynne

I have no problem with overseas aid to any country that needs it but as has been stated some Govts are corrupt & I think when any country sends people to show the population how to irrigate their land,manage crops etc it can be far more beneficial.
As the saying goes:-

Give a man a fish....he eats for a day
Give him a fishing rod...he'll eat for life

Most NGO (non-governmental organization) aid is definitely development aid. Think of Oxfam, Unicef, Care. They work at the local level most of the time, on small local projects.

Usually, showing people how to do things isn't considered the best approach these days. They know how to do their own things. Giving them sources of clean drinking water is important, for example -- but again, letting them do the work and take responsibility for the facility.

What they often need is ways to reach markets, or small loans to enable them to do that. Some women, for instance, can support their families very well with products they grow or make and sell at local markets, but they spend their lives in debt to local loan sharks, who lend them the money to buy supplies, and then when they sell their product, all the money goes back to the lender and they start over again; it's like the company store. A tiny interest-free loan gives them a chance to keep more of their earnings each time, and buy more supplies, and then send their kids to school, and so on.

Disaster relief is another thing, of course. Both NGOs and governments are involved in that.

Government-to-government aid does many things: big infrastructure like roads, training for judges and lawyers to establish a judicial system that is not corrupt and impossible for ordinary people to use, training for all kinds of government functions. For instance, there is talk of Canada helping Cuba create its income tax system. ;)

NGOs are usually in a better position to do development aid. They can work with NGOs in the country in question, to deliver the services "on the ground" as they say, and buy the material and hire the labour locally, which is efficient and cretes local jobs.

It also makes sense for governments of the donor countries to contract with or fund their own NGOs or international NGOs to deliver this kind of aid, because they have the contacts and know-how.

There are a whole lot of problems with how aid is delivered, no question.

One is what's called "tied aid" -- where the money donated is conditional on the food, for instance, being bought in the country that donates the money. Say, Canada donates money to buy wheat, and it has to be Canadian wheat. (This stopped in 2008, for food.) That isn't just expensive, it means the country getting the aid isn't developing its own agriculture more, to meet its own needs.

They're getting fish instead of fishing rods indeed, and the donated money is coming right back to the donor country. They know how to fish already -- they just need money for the rods and the bait to start with. ;)

So it isn't just the governments getting the money that cause problems. It's the governments giving the money, too.

Any Country how ever big or small, can only do it's best under the circumstances it finds itself in when a crisis occurs either at home or elsewhere. Money is not the answer to everything, Knowledge is the real power. You don't have to have a fishing rod to get fish, you can use a stick.