AlJahom comments on the reaction of Andrew Mitchell to the Pakistan floods. The article he links to is behind the Times’ paywall, but the gist is, we aren’t giving enough and people who are paid bonuses should give some of that.
After a harrowing trip to meet flood victims in Pakistan, a cabinet minister has called on workers who receive bonuses to donate some of the money to charity.
AJ is unsurprisingly scathing. As someone who is self-employed, I don’t get a bonus. Actually, at the moment, things are pretty tight all round, but that’s another story.
I have given everything to Pakistan that I feel it deserves, which is precisely nothing. I gave this to every other demand for a handout where taxpayers’ money had been given. As a taxpayer, I have already given without being asked if I thought that the cause was okay. I do not therefore, as a matter of principle, give to any cause or any charity that takes money from the tax coffers.
Sure, on a human level I can empathise with those who have become dispossessed by the floods. However, when we are criticised for not giving enough or not acting quickly enough or whatever the latest whinge is, I feel even less inclined to give. Charity is something given freely with no strings attached. The gift is not a right, nor should it be demanded and those who demand, don’t get as far as I am concerned.
Perhaps what we are seeing is giving fatigue – there is only so much people can cough up and it is always the same pockets being delved after all.
I already gave involuntarily at the office via PAYE.
As far as I’m concerned charity begins at home and I should decide who gets any spare cash of mine, not some jumped up government minister on a free junket to Taliban South.
No one ever gives money to charity. Rather they purchase status (or when I’m collecting on the strength of running a marathon they pay to avoid losing status). Whether to give or not is therefor decided by the individuals judgment as to what will produce most status, and whether it is worth material sacrifice.
Of course politicians can garner for themselves status as “caring” by taking money from ordinary joes and using that.
I was at the Bristol Bike Show last weekend when a couple came up to ask the six of us to donate to the Pakistan Floods Appeal. They had photo ID and gave every impression they were legit.
We all said “no.” Not “Sorry I don’t have any change” or similar excuses that people sometimes use when they want to avoid arguing the merits or otherwise of whatever charity someone is collecting for.
The pair walked off without even trying to give us the hard sell. Clearly our response was typical. I also imagine that the £30m that has supposedly been sent by the public has come largely from one section of the population.
I gave slightly less than you did.
After I read about the 200 million donated by China for their space program and the 2 billion they spent on their nuclear program, I decided they have enough money to deal with a higher than average rainfall.
A headline in the ‘Metro’ this morning was something like ‘Politicians shamed by public donations’
Two things: ‘politician’ and ‘shame’ goes together like ‘fish’ and ‘bicycle’.
It’s not going to shame them into giving their OWN money, but rather mine!
What Bucko said.
They have $2 billion in the kitty for their space program. They can use that. When they run out I will send them some money, but not before.
This isn’t about “donation fatigue”. It’s about them using money they already have. And why aren’t their neighbours doing more?
CR.
“…why aren’t their neighbours doing more”
Exactly. I don’t pretend to know much about Islam but I do think that it is considered some sort of ‘brotherhood’ that crosses national borders. It would be good to hear that Pakistan’s astonishingly wealthy Muslim neighbors were donating in proportion to their means.
Always, always give locally and directly to a charity (preferably not one of the biggies – and never one which employs chuggers) or individuals or organisations that you know. LR’s penultimate paragraph sums it up admirably.
Voyager, yes, Muslims are required by their faith to give charity to other Muslims in need. Which is why so much money is pouring in from Saudi Arabia… oh…
And this is why welfare state cannot be replaced by private charity
At the risk of sounding facetious, why should the welfare state support a foreign country?
Actually, being serious for a moment, I have never argued for a full abolition of state aid for those who need it. The underlying principles of the welfare state are fine; they provide a much needed safety net and I am happy with that principle. I am unhappy with the manner in which it has become bloated, creating a dependency culture and I am extremely unhappy with the state giving money to charity on my behalf.