An Oxford-based campaign, Giving What We Can, wants volunteers to commit to donating 10% of their earnings. It might sound unthinkable in straitened times, but is it really?

Well, grammatically speaking, it's a contradiction if nothing else.
What if, what you 'can' give, is only 5% or 7%. Will it be refused?

I already tithe. I give 5% to the RSPCA, 2.5% to my local animal shelter and 2.5% to my old Oxford college.

The campaign will fail, not because British people are ungenerous, but because they increasingly realise that foreign aid is part of the problem, not part of the solution.

Bring back feudalism?

Those of us past our 20s know that it's a teeny bit more complicated than that.

GWWC seems to be very prescriptive in terms of which charities it will support. It doesn't seem to recognise environmental charities for example and is agin animal charities. All power to their elbow though for raising awareness of what a good charity does but they do have their limits.
I'm perfectly happy to donate to charity AND to non-charitable organisations such as Amnesty which again don't count for GWWC but which can make a difference in the world.
I could feel somewhat guilt-tripped by them as their ethos seems to be that all money donated should go to saving lives. There are other ways of making a difference and those of us who don't buy into GWWC in its entirety should feel able to give money and/or time to any organisation that has the welfare of some component of this planet at its heart whether human, animal, vegetable, tree, sea, earth or indeed mountain. We need it all to function for us to function; so it's not possible, in my view, to separate them out from each other.

Flat rate giving? How unprogressive is that? :)

People already donate between 20 -50% of their earnings in what is called taxation, which I believe pays for care of the sick, elderly, and the workless.

People already donate between 20 -50% of their earnings in what is called taxation, which I believe pays for care of the sick, elderly, and the workless.

Good point, but it is actually worse than that. You are thinking of income tax, but don't forget National Insurance, VAT, Council Tax, fuel and car duty, stamp duty...etc, etc. Still, I am sure we all agree that the Government is better at spending our money than we would be.

Better to give 10% of the free time you have than lazily writing a cheque to washing away all social responsibility.

Better to give 10% of the free time you have than lazily writing a cheque to washing away all social responsibility.

An interesting idea, but is that true? At the end of the day, donating money to a charity is still a donation of work - it's just work that you did for someone else, and allows the charity much more freedom and flexibility.

You havea responsibility to yourself, your friends and family.
You have a responsibility not to CAUSE pain to others.
You have no responsibility to pay for someone's life outside of taxation.If everyone looked after their own, we'd alll be a lot better off.

A large proportion of brits can't afford a roof over their heads, and have to borrow to pay their housing costs.

Should people who can't afford their own basic needs be expected to pay for the basic needs of others?

GWWC seems to be very prescriptive in terms of which charities it will support... I'm perfectly happy to donate to charity AND to non-charitable organisations such as Amnesty which again don't count for GWWC but which can make a difference in the world.
I could feel somewhat guilt-tripped by them as their ethos seems to be that all money donated should go to saving lives. There are other ways of making a difference

I do not like the preachy tone and proscriptiveness of GWWC (and invoking Peter Singer makes it questionable, in my opinion – he's a crank). It is hostile to people doing things for charities for people in the UK (I donate books and clothes to BHF, Shelter and Cancer Research, and I volunteered for year in a Barnardo's Shop). I have small direct debits with Amnesty, Freedom from Torture and LEPRA, and have been dressing out of charity shops for nearly 30 years. But 10%? Don't they think/care about the fact some of us are low-paid? I barely get by on £12K a year (and that's only if I'm employed for most of the year – not guaranteed in temping). Reduce that to under £11K and I'd be homeless.

They have a fixation on 10% because of the religious traditions behind it, and believe that people in the UK can live comfortably on 90% of their incomes. They clearly don't know anyone in low-paid and/or insecure employment.

GWWC seems to be very prescriptive in terms of which charities it will support. It doesn't seem to recognise environmental charities for example and is agin animal charities.

Another point: supposing all these millions of lives were saved, how would countries with severely depleted environments handle resulting overpopulation? They shouldn't ignore the environmental issues.

an Oxford-based campaign wants volunteers to donate 10% of their earnings

I want a Lamborghini Murciélago, life is full of disappointment.

The principle of zakat requires Muslims to give a fixed portion of their wealth annually.

I'm sure Jesus had something to say about being rich, but christianity has managed to blind eye to that for the last 2,000 years.

Pointing out that the Muslims are better than them at being Christian probably isn't going to win them over.

It isn't all altruism either; Ord admits that giving makes him feel happier. "I would feel guilty when I had an opportunity to give but didn't. Now I feel a lot more at peace with myself."

Then it really doesn't sound like much of a sacrifice, more an expensive way of getting off for someone with a lot of disposable income.

My mother believed in some 19th century philosopher (who I've been drinking too much to remember) You save a third of your income, you live on a third of your income, and the final third you give away.

And that is what she did......And what is wrong with that........If everyone did that we wouldn't have a fraction of the problems in the world we do.

I would happily give 10% of my income away. If I knew it was going to good causes. And I don't mean Guardian muesli projects.

What's wrong with giving away what you've earned.

The tax relief that currently applies to all charitable donations should be removed for domestic animal charities. The treasury could use the money saved to mitigate the effects of the cuts on the poorest people in society.

There is already a surfeit of domestic animals in this country. Why should tax payers give tax relief to help support these unwanted animals? Unwanted cats and dogs that can't be re-homed could be humanely terminated.

We already "give" far more than 10% through an innovative system called "taxes". These taxes should, in theory, ensure that those who have more help those who have less. A proportion of these taxes goes towards foreign aid, on the basis that if we don't let people abroad starve or fall into desperation, then their countries won't become breeding grounds for terrorists or dictators.

The beauty of taxes is that a centralised government (at least, one that doesn't have its head up its arse) ensures that revenue goes towards public utilities and services where needed.

In contrast, if you leave it up to individuals to give away 10% of their income to whatever causes they chose, then free market principals take over... and you end up with daft situations where a donkey sanctuary receives more money than the country's top-three rape crisis charities put together. That's right - a donkey sanctuary.

Similarly, if you leave it up to individuals to donate for foreign aid, it will probably all end up going to east Africa and everyone will forget about the kids in Haiti. Remember them?

The Giving What We Can website pretty comprehensively demolishes this claim.

Well I sort of do already, I pay taxes on over 1/3 of my income and try to save half of the rest.

Yes i get some direct benefit from the taxes spent but really not all that much given my lifestyle, there is nothing wrong with taxation but in what sense isn't it given away? I am obliged to society but isn't that just what this article is saying?

They know plenty of people living on not very much with insecure job prospects - they're academics! They're also among the less religious people I know. Possibly the 10% figure was chosen because of its long standing connotations though - I may ask next time I see them.

It is in fact perfectly possible to live on 90% of a surprisingly low income. I'm currently living on ~£8000 (after tax). And Oxford is an expensive city to live in.

Obviously, different people have different circumstances - if you have a family things get a tad pricier! But the principle that you can probably get by on less than you think still holds. There will be a few who truly can't - obviously nobody is suggesting they starve themselves to give to charity!

Personally I prefer to save for a rainy day than give to charity. Some prefer that extra bit of comfort and ease day-to-day. And some like to do good for others. I think encouraging people to at least think about what they can do can only be a good thing.

A quick look at my bank statements, and a guesstimate of the amount I put in the charity boxes we see everywhere, shows that I already give 10%.
And I manage a reasonable life below the 'poverty line'.

I feel good about that, because 10% to me is very significant, and I also manage to avoid ANY faith-based or animal charity !

To someone on £100,000, it's pocket money, and probably tax deductible.

10% of my monthly earnings is almost 3 weeks worth of my food.

I'm currently elsewhere in the world than the UK on a temporary visa, so need to save up to be able to move on should I not be able to renew my visa or gain a permanent one.

I am only working a backpacker (fundraising) job right now, but if I were on a permanent visa, I could easily afford to donate 10% of my earnings to charity. I have previously worked in sales as well as fundraising and one thing you notice is that people can always afford to "donate" more towards themselves than they can towards the benefit of society.

This does not apply for everyone, but when you consider how much you waste just when you pop to the shops on things that you didn't even go for, you see it soon adds up and you can easily donate if you put some thought into it.

The couple who live above me...I looked after their cat over christmas and bought all its food, they get back and rather than saying thank you and refunding me they scrounged 50 quid and promised to pay it back yesterday (which they didn't). Then bang on my door a couple of hours ago for more money, another tenner because apparently the idiot had missed the bus and need money for a taxi.

She has a rich Dad who bought her the flat above when she was a student.

I'm a soft old Lefty bastard but I'm getting close to killing these fuckers.

Animals are nice and fluffy and can't always help themselves. Why wouldn't I want to help them out?

I hardly ever donate to charities for people, particularly if they support those who are perpetually incapable of learning a lesson. There are already a surfeit of people in this country, perhaps if the money was spent on neutering them, we wouldn't have so many unwanted ones roaming the streets getting into trouble or becoming MPs.

Humane termination might be going a bit far, for now at least.

From a global perspective everyone within the UK is part of the 1% and has an obligation to share 10%.

People already donate between 20 -50% of their earnings in what is called taxation, which I believe pays for care of the sick, elderly, and the workless.

Paying taxes is not optional and so it is not giving. Giving to others is of course optional.

It's not the giving, its where it goes. The pentecostal "churches" generally screw 10% out of their members' incomes, but where then does that go? Not very far from the church itself, I fear, and often (so experience would indicate), no further than the so-called pastor himself.
Muslim charitable giving likewise tends not to be directed towards any recipients outside the Muslim community at large. (If there be exceptions, then I apologise to those Muslims whose charitable giving extends beyond the Muslim community).

Choose a charity, any charity that appeals to you, and give 10%. I cannot. I might have been able to once, but as the energy companies have been permitted by successive governments to become no less than licenced extortionists, and as my own needs to keep warm become more paramount (due to illness), I find that I cannot afford to give anything like 10% of my income to charity anymore.

I already tithe. I give 5% to the RSPCA, 2.5% to my local animal shelter and 2.5% to my old Oxford college.

I don't want to be too critical: you do more than me. But a starving East African might question your priorities here.

Realistically these issues need to be dealt with by governments, and supra-national agencies like the UN. There will never be enough volunteers. I would quite happily hold governments e.g. to the G8 promises they made at Gleneagles to Geldof and Bono, to Blair and Brown - and which they have not fulfilled. And if that meant paying a small amount more in taxes, so be it.

People already donate between 20 -50% of their earnings in what is called taxation, which I believe pays for care of the sick, elderly, and the workless.

Well that's the theory..... unfortunately the new idea is that we she continue to pay that whilst taking out insurances against these things should they happen to us. The 'spare' money is then recycled to the rich. It's called the 'big society'.

Bangla Desh is a mainly Muslim country. Therefore if all Muslims did what their religion said there wouldn't have been a problem. Talking of Muslims, the rumour over here is that Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iran, Iraq and the emirates are also Muslim and have plenty of the folding stuff what with their black gold.
To get the really big bikkies, the Oxford guy should go and chat with them.
One correspondent observed that all of the UK is in the 1%. He obviously hasn't tried buying any $A recently, or Australian real estate.
However the main point that appears to have been missed is the MISSION CREEP of charities. If you check their websites they not only want to feed the poor, but only after they have raised their consciousness about the impact that global warming has on polar bears, and the terrible effects that historical, imperial capitalism has had on their perception of reality, and after all their executives have attended international conferences to discuss the way forward.
Of course some food is distributed - to the warlords and the crooks - for resale to the poor.
Perhaps if instead people put in 1% to add to the Mo Ibrahim award. But then of course poor Mo doesn't really understand because this award doesn't require a huge bureaucracy, and as everyone knows the bigger the bureaucracy the more people can achieve.

'we she'???? wtf? bit early in the day......

If we're going to talk about ethical obligations that are wildly unrealistic, we could quite easily point out that those living in abject poverty have an ethical obligation not to have children.

I don't want to be too critical: you do more than me. But a starving East African might question your priorities here.

I don't want to be too critical, but how many children did that "starving East African" have? 12? 14? Might that "starving East African" be in better shape if she/he had only had as many children as he/she can support?

I think donating to the SPCA and animal shelters (or international animal welfare organizations such as IFAW) is a wonderful choice when allocating money for charity.

The Baby Boomers should be giving 10% of their income to subsidize their (soon-to-be) mounting healthcare costs. They received most everything else in life for free and benefited from housing and stock value growth that will not occur again in any of our lifetimes. Time to give back.

The under-40s, by and large, are struggling to stay out of debt and can't afford to give up any money on such feel-good initiatives.

I'd love to be able to give more but seeing as my tax bill has risen meaning I had to cancel my pension contributions there's only so much blood you can squeeze from a stone.

I give 10% and occasionally more. I thought that was standard practice.

When I was a child I remember rationing, making do, mending and going without. I also remember the tiny envelopes that were regularily handed out in school [convent] asking for pennies for the black babies. Wow betide and shame anyone who didn't donate a few pennies so we went without to send our pennies into an insatiable maw.

I am sorry but more than 60 years on any spare pennies I have go to local and national charities where the money is well spent and no I do not tithe because as a pensioner I am still rationing my food, making do, mending and going without.

It depends what you regard as 'their own'.

I am happy to pay my tax (would never avoid) so that we live in a decent, caring and well run society.

I give support to my close family - help with mortgage deposit etc. If I couldn't afford this I would get an extra job to do so or give time so they could do so.

I give support to my wider family - we recently had a whip round to buy specialist equipment for a sister in pain.

I give support to an even wider circle of 'my own' because they are human beings in need. I have for 20 odd years paid a set amount to a large charity dealing with children around the world (a small monthly amount).

Now that I am retired I give an afternoon a week to support a young family through a charity (possibly soon to be closed down through government cuts).

Am I unusual? Absolutely not. I know people who do more. I know people in real financial hardship who always try to give a few coppers to buskers, beggars, charities etc. They walk taller when they can share what little they have.

Yes, everyone should look after their own - it just depends where you see the boundary of 'your own'.

Oh, and I am not selfless, I look after myself as well as I possibly can. Just as important but that 'walking tall' thing applies to most of us. We feel good when we share.

There's an easier and less painful way for citizens to fund the resources needed to fund programs in the third world, including education, health, sustainable energy systems and so forth. Just sign up for the introduction of a Financial Transaction Tax, which has already received massive approval from the European Parliament (529 in favour, 127 against, and 19 abstentions), and will be introduced by Sarkozy in France, even if the other Eurozone countries don't. In the UK, where the economy involves 1000 trillion pounds in transactions per year, even a tiny tax would generate enough money to increase such spending by a factor of 10. Much more intelligent that getting a few hard up people to give up 10% of their income.

Yes, but you give your spare pennies to a charity of your choice. You share what you have. I'm sure that is an intrinsic part of your nature and I'm sure you feel better for it.

I too went to a Catholic school and we too had a card showing we had given money for 'black babies'. I came from a very poor family but my mum always gave us a few pennies for the said babies. You got to name a baby if you filled your card. I'm sorry to say I only ever named one such baby - after a while I realised I could use the pennies to buy sweets on the way to school and not get caught out. Ashamed to say I went along the sweets for me route. I still feel bad about that.

A Saint in human form... What is it like to be amongst us mere mortals, Sirrah?

*

frozenchosen

7 January 2012 08:18AM

The Baby Boomers should be giving 10% of their income to subsidize their (soon-to-be) mounting healthcare costs. They received most everything else in life for free and benefited from housing and stock value growth that will not occur again in any of our lifetimes. Time to give back.

The under-40s, by and large, are struggling to stay out of debt and can't afford to give up any money on such feel-good initiatives.

Ah this argument again. You sound like a 'Baby Blubberer'. I am a 'Baby Boomer'. This thing about having got everything in life for free!!!!! How dare you insult me and many like me with this rubbish. I went to a secondary modern school (like the majority of us). I left at 15 without a single certificate (we weren't even tested). I managed to get some secretarial training through through some 'kidology'. Came to London when I was about 17 with £8.00 in my pocket. Lived in a bedsit with a girl. We were 17 and had to pay our rent out of the wages the average 17 year old earned. There were a few times we had no food nor money to put into the greedy gas meter. I eventually managed to get an education through night classes which I'm fairly sure I paid towards. Eventually managed to sign on for Open University which I paid towards. I did a teacher training degree when I was bringing up my children - bloody hard work doing both.

I have worked since I was 14. Worked in a cafe at weekends when I was 14 and in a chip shop a few evenings. I have worked ever since paying tax and National Insurance for over 40 years and never receiving a direct benefit.

I saved and bought a small house and then the mortgage interest rates went up to 15% so we had to find extra work to pay for that. I have not gone round making profit from housing. I moved moved once. I am not unusual for my generation. We had a hard time financially and in other ways and many of us pulled ourselves up by our bootlaces. Free university? If only!!!!! Was I personally responsible for social housing being sold to the highest bidder? I certainly never voted for the party that was. I, like many of my generation, were busy trying to make things better for all. Opposed domestic violence - the first shelters for battered women were opened in our time. We opposed racism, stood up for South Africa, changed things for women, marched against wars from the Vietnam war onwards. Supported the miners But it seems we are responsible for all the ills in the world.

I have two children in their thirties. I still help support them. Yes, I know your generation have it hard, especially in housing. I sympathise. However, I never talk disparagingly about the 'younger generation' as if you were all one lot who whine and expect everything on a plate. I see how hard my own children work and how hard their friends do and what a lovely, caring generation they are.

Yes, you have it hard and I sympathise but I just will not listen to you herd us together as some greedy privileged lot. Oh, and by the way if you read my post above you will see that I and most of my friends and acquaintances do give back. You are 40 now and should be able to analyse the real cause of the misery we see around us today but instead of fighting the source of that hardship you pick on what you see as an easy target - the old. We are getting older but we will not allow this sort of prejudice to gain ground. Shame on you.

I'm too angry to re-read this looking for mistakes.

Why would we all not try to do our best? I am not in this by myself. As I said many, if not most, of my friends and acquaintances give support to an ever widening group. I listen to people every day brag about how much they have how they spend it on new this and that. I am a socialist. What does this mean to me? It means community and society and caring. Would it be right to have those principles then brag about avoiding tax, keeping everything to myself and only helping my offspring. I said about my family putting in the pot to help a sister in need - one of the people who put in the pot is on a State pension with no other income. Did that make her feel good - yes, she said it gave her pride.

What is it like to be amongst mere mortals? I find most people I come across kind, generous. I have travelled widely and have found people round the world to be the same. People have helped me out in the most unusual circumstances. When I was young we broke down in our battered old van. A couple stopped to help us. We had no money at the time. They took us to a friend of theirs who fixed our car for nothing and put us up in his flat overnight again for nothing as we had nothing on us (the days before we had debit cards etc). Of course we sent him something in the post later but they taught me the most wonderful lesson about wider community and I have never forgotten them. Other people have been extremely kind to me and mine.

So what does it feel like to be amongst 'mere mortals'? Good. However, it may be I just choose my company carefully. futdashukup - how does it feel to you?

When I state above I hear people brag everyday about what they have, buy etc. I meant to say why should we not share about what good people can do - in appropriate ways such as this forum which is discussing giving.

I already give 30% to the government--more if you include VAT

The principle of zakat requires Muslims to give a fixed portion of their wealth annually.

Muslims copied the tithes already mandatory in Abraham times through the middle age christianity and european feudalism and were later replaced by taxes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tithe