This is something I can agree with:
A few short days ago, Sara Scarlett, a well known libertarian and a former Lib Dem started a petition calling on the Government to cease all funding of the charitable sector.
A “charity” which receives taxpayer funding is simply not a charity. In light of the Kids Company scandal it is fair to say that a symbiotic relationship between gov. and charities is unhelpful and inappropriate. Taxpayer funding turns charities into unaccountable Quangos. This is morally wrong.
What problems do you believe taxpayer funding of charities produce?
If a “charity” receives public funding, it’s not a charity, it’s quango. That may just be semantics, however, semantics are usually manipulated to obscure poor practice.
The accountability, transparency and scrutiny standards of Charities are well below the standards expected in other publically funded bodies.
Government funding isn’t granted on the basis of merit. It’s given to Government favourites. Other charities were resentful of Kids Company’s special status.
Meaning well is not the same as doing good. There seems to be no accurate measure of a charity’s output. With no way to measure output then there’s no way to conduct a cost/benefit analysis. Whilst giving away your own money on a wing and a prayer is fine by me, it’s not okay with public funds.
The Charity sector should not be a subdivision of Whitehall. The charity sector is not meant to be part of the Welfare State. If the two are virtually joined then Charity is just a way for politicians to absolve themselves of direct responsibility.
In my humble opinion, public funding makes charities lazy. Chasing public funds is not the same as fundraising from the general public. It is a different game and when a charity does one it usually neglects the other.
It’s a deceit to claim to be a charity, when very little of your funding comes from voluntary public donations. ASH is a registered charity, yet it gets almost all its money from other fake charities (e.g. CRUK) or from the government or Big Pharma. It’s like pretending to be an amateur football player when you’re actually a professional. One plays football for the love of the game, and the other plays football to earn a living.
The worst of it is these fake charities are so uncharitable. There was nothing charitable about campaigning to ban smoking in pubs, and exile smokers to the outdoors. Charity is “an unconditional love for others“. When was the last time that any smoker was foolish enough to imagine that ASH or CRUK “loved” them? They don’t. They hate smokers, and they work hard to exclude them and demonise them. They are the mortal enemies of smokers. They pretend to be “helping” them, but all they ever actually do is hurt them. And they do it with taxpaying smokers’ money.