22% of Charity money going to Charity

HI Their,

I just wanted to draw the attention on 22% of the charity money that the charities deduct saying as administration fees. I think this is utterly wrong and it put me off from doing charity. Charity has to be volunteer and should not be looked upon as a business or carrier. 

A Simple Example how i was put of from donating even one pound a month is one day a guy walked into my work place and asked me to help a boy in africa get clean water. He said it can be done by giving just £1 a month. I just asked him out of this pound how much money goes to africa he told me 78p goes to africa an 22p is deducted  as administration costs.

It was about this£1 very small amount but imagine this Charity would be Raising 1 Million Pounds in charity and Simply keeping £220,000 with them as adminstartion cost.

I think charities have to work voluntarly and they should not deduct any money from the charity money given by any induvidual. 

Everyone involved in the charity business should just work as a volunteer and not take any money. Even the companies invoved like the money exchange comapny, The Banks, The business providing the materials should be free and should not incurr any costs.

I am sorry if anyone is offened but i think if we make it more clearer it will encourage more pleople like me to do some charity.

Regards to everyone. 

Why is this idea important?

HI Their,

I just wanted to draw the attention on 22% of the charity money that the charities deduct saying as administration fees. I think this is utterly wrong and it put me off from doing charity. Charity has to be volunteer and should not be looked upon as a business or carrier. 

A Simple Example how i was put of from donating even one pound a month is one day a guy walked into my work place and asked me to help a boy in africa get clean water. He said it can be done by giving just £1 a month. I just asked him out of this pound how much money goes to africa he told me 78p goes to africa an 22p is deducted  as administration costs.

It was about this£1 very small amount but imagine this Charity would be Raising 1 Million Pounds in charity and Simply keeping £220,000 with them as adminstartion cost.

I think charities have to work voluntarly and they should not deduct any money from the charity money given by any induvidual. 

Everyone involved in the charity business should just work as a volunteer and not take any money. Even the companies invoved like the money exchange comapny, The Banks, The business providing the materials should be free and should not incurr any costs.

I am sorry if anyone is offened but i think if we make it more clearer it will encourage more pleople like me to do some charity.

Regards to everyone. 

Ban chuggers

Not sure if this isn't a legal issue, but after seeing last night's BBC exposé of this disgraceful practice, the attempts of one charity to defend it, and of one parasite who has grown fat off it to justify it, common sense and decency demand that the government outlaw this obscene practice.

If people want to shake a poppy tin, or as I saw earlier this week, a bucket appealing for aid to flood victims in Pakistan, that's fine, but stopping people in the street, and in effect stealing money from them due to their good nature is not just obscene but wicked.

The government should totally overhall charity legislation, and if civil servants and others are to have their salaries, expenses and practices subjected to greater public scrutiny, so too should people who earn their livelihoods from the generosity of others.

Why is this idea important?

Not sure if this isn't a legal issue, but after seeing last night's BBC exposé of this disgraceful practice, the attempts of one charity to defend it, and of one parasite who has grown fat off it to justify it, common sense and decency demand that the government outlaw this obscene practice.

If people want to shake a poppy tin, or as I saw earlier this week, a bucket appealing for aid to flood victims in Pakistan, that's fine, but stopping people in the street, and in effect stealing money from them due to their good nature is not just obscene but wicked.

The government should totally overhall charity legislation, and if civil servants and others are to have their salaries, expenses and practices subjected to greater public scrutiny, so too should people who earn their livelihoods from the generosity of others.

Ammend VAT to make charities exempt when buying in services

Many charities apply for public funding for projects. They then put out tenders or calls for people to deliver services. This can be anything from building works to arts organisations delivering projects. VAT registered companies who apply are often asked to tender for costs inclusive of VAT because the charity is not vat-registered themselves, and cannot reclaim the vat and won't have the money in their budgets as a "just incase of VAt".Some funders dont like contingency.  This means some suppliers are deemed expensive, not because of cost, but because of financial regulation. We propose that if a charity contracts a vat-registered company, the charity can re-claim the vat back.  OR, the company can supply VAt 0% invoices to charities, who, by definition, are not providing luxury but necesary services. When VAT goes up to 20% this will have a huge impact on charities who's applications for funding  will not have taken this into account and may have an affect on exisiting services. As a supplier currently delivering for a trust, I know they cannot afford an extra 2.5% VAT hike to pay for us in the new year. Are we expected to aborb that by offering a reduced serivce, or lose out ot a non-wat regsitered organisation?

Why is this idea important?

Many charities apply for public funding for projects. They then put out tenders or calls for people to deliver services. This can be anything from building works to arts organisations delivering projects. VAT registered companies who apply are often asked to tender for costs inclusive of VAT because the charity is not vat-registered themselves, and cannot reclaim the vat and won't have the money in their budgets as a "just incase of VAt".Some funders dont like contingency.  This means some suppliers are deemed expensive, not because of cost, but because of financial regulation. We propose that if a charity contracts a vat-registered company, the charity can re-claim the vat back.  OR, the company can supply VAt 0% invoices to charities, who, by definition, are not providing luxury but necesary services. When VAT goes up to 20% this will have a huge impact on charities who's applications for funding  will not have taken this into account and may have an affect on exisiting services. As a supplier currently delivering for a trust, I know they cannot afford an extra 2.5% VAT hike to pay for us in the new year. Are we expected to aborb that by offering a reduced serivce, or lose out ot a non-wat regsitered organisation?

Local Authority Entertainment License or Temporary Events Notice

I represent a small national youth charity which organises events, and locally much smaller organisations affiliated to our national charity organise events, which probably have no more than 1,500 people attending.

In recent years, the bureaucracy and costs have spiraled. So, charities who run events for public good, for their members and the public without planning to make a profit, risk running events at a loss by have to pay £300+ to the local authority for a full Ent Lic – WHY? When a T.E.N., would do.

The events I speak of aren't rock concerts with tens of thousands of spectators and very loud amplified music, neither do they have the crowds known to be at hundreds of football matches every week, and do the latter require a license? No.

Make the process simpler. Make it consistently applied across all local authorities. Reduce the costs to something like £50 per day, and make those costs consistent across all local authorities.

Why is this idea important?

I represent a small national youth charity which organises events, and locally much smaller organisations affiliated to our national charity organise events, which probably have no more than 1,500 people attending.

In recent years, the bureaucracy and costs have spiraled. So, charities who run events for public good, for their members and the public without planning to make a profit, risk running events at a loss by have to pay £300+ to the local authority for a full Ent Lic – WHY? When a T.E.N., would do.

The events I speak of aren't rock concerts with tens of thousands of spectators and very loud amplified music, neither do they have the crowds known to be at hundreds of football matches every week, and do the latter require a license? No.

Make the process simpler. Make it consistently applied across all local authorities. Reduce the costs to something like £50 per day, and make those costs consistent across all local authorities.

Getting the Long Term Unemployed Back to Work

There are many charities that already have the procedures in hand to train volunteers and give them the necessary skills to enhance their abilities to return to paid employment.  The government needs to endorse such a programme.  Sometimes just the work experience and doing courses like First Aid, POVA and Child Protection can elevate a person's confidence and abilities enough to give them a start back on the career path.  This would help organisations like the Red Cross attract more volunteers and help the government get people off aid whilst serving the community and making the volunteer feel good about themselves through worthwhile work.  

Why is this idea important?

There are many charities that already have the procedures in hand to train volunteers and give them the necessary skills to enhance their abilities to return to paid employment.  The government needs to endorse such a programme.  Sometimes just the work experience and doing courses like First Aid, POVA and Child Protection can elevate a person's confidence and abilities enough to give them a start back on the career path.  This would help organisations like the Red Cross attract more volunteers and help the government get people off aid whilst serving the community and making the volunteer feel good about themselves through worthwhile work.  

Cancel proposed CIOs

For some years the concept of the CIO (Charitable Incorporated Organisation) has been under development. Before the Companies Act 2006 came into force there were good arguments in favour of CIOs. However the new Act simplified the legal operational requirements of small company charities and, as a result, there is no longer any need for CIOs.

The argument in favour of CIOs is that this new form of charity will only be accountable to the Charity Commission and not Companies House. For charities however the accountability to Companies House is not onerous. 

There are other arguments in favour of abandoning the new charity form. We do not know whether the new form will be 'fit for purpose', and the signs are that it may not be. 

We are charity specialists advising some thousands of trustees across the UK. Our advice, if CIOs do come into being is that we would want to see them well bedded in before deciding whether we can recommend them. This feeling is probably common amongst many charity advisers.

 

 

Why is this idea important?

For some years the concept of the CIO (Charitable Incorporated Organisation) has been under development. Before the Companies Act 2006 came into force there were good arguments in favour of CIOs. However the new Act simplified the legal operational requirements of small company charities and, as a result, there is no longer any need for CIOs.

The argument in favour of CIOs is that this new form of charity will only be accountable to the Charity Commission and not Companies House. For charities however the accountability to Companies House is not onerous. 

There are other arguments in favour of abandoning the new charity form. We do not know whether the new form will be 'fit for purpose', and the signs are that it may not be. 

We are charity specialists advising some thousands of trustees across the UK. Our advice, if CIOs do come into being is that we would want to see them well bedded in before deciding whether we can recommend them. This feeling is probably common amongst many charity advisers.

 

 

Amend the Charities Act so that 90% of donations go to the stated cause

There is a great deal of public concern that Charities are not passing on the donations they receive to the stated cause.

People feel their valuable donations are being burnt up in unnecessary administration, fat cat directors salaries or are being redirected to less worthy causes. In the event of a natural disaster the default response of some British Charities is to send a media spokesperson to ask for money in front of a Medicine San Frontier tent.

The Charities Act should be amended so that it is requirement of charitable status that 90% of donations received (including the sale of non-monetary donations) should be given to the stated cause. The stated cause(s) should be stated in the registration document. If the Charity appeals for funds on a specific cause then 90% of the resulting donations should go to that specific cause.

Why is this idea important?

There is a great deal of public concern that Charities are not passing on the donations they receive to the stated cause.

People feel their valuable donations are being burnt up in unnecessary administration, fat cat directors salaries or are being redirected to less worthy causes. In the event of a natural disaster the default response of some British Charities is to send a media spokesperson to ask for money in front of a Medicine San Frontier tent.

The Charities Act should be amended so that it is requirement of charitable status that 90% of donations received (including the sale of non-monetary donations) should be given to the stated cause. The stated cause(s) should be stated in the registration document. If the Charity appeals for funds on a specific cause then 90% of the resulting donations should go to that specific cause.

Repeal the Charities Act 1993

I previously suggested the repeal of the Charities Act 2006. However, subsequent to doing so, I was informed by a distingusihed charity lawyer that in order for the repeal to be effective in the way which is desirable, the Charities Act 1993 should also be repealed. I therefore call upon the Coalitoin Government to repeal both acts.

Why is this idea important?

I previously suggested the repeal of the Charities Act 2006. However, subsequent to doing so, I was informed by a distingusihed charity lawyer that in order for the repeal to be effective in the way which is desirable, the Charities Act 1993 should also be repealed. I therefore call upon the Coalitoin Government to repeal both acts.

Repeal the Charities Act 2006 in its entirety

This nefarious Act gave the Charity Commission supra-legal powers which are contrary to natural justice, contrary to 1000 years of British justice, and which are in defiance of human rights. The Act gives the Commission the power to intercept communications, enter and search without a warrant, seize without need to justify, and carry out investigations on a 'guilty until proven innocent' basis by using an inquisitorial process where evidence of accusations does not need to be produced. (Freedom of Information requests for documents explaining accusations can be declined by non-qualified legal advisors working for the Commission who have no experience in dealing with such matters.) The investigatory processes of the Charity Commission can easily be hijacked in private causes by anyone with enough money to pay an expensive charity lawyer to put together a dossier of complaint. There is no need for the complaints to be true, they can be made up as part of a smear campaign or business or personal vendetta. As long as the dossier is professionally compiled and the lawyer accepts what his client tells him and uncritically repeats it without any attempt at verification, the Charity Commission will generally launch an investigation. If you hate somebody and discover that he or she is a trustee of a registered charity, and are prepared to pay a lawyer, you can launch a vendetta against that person and it will be carried on for you by public funds.  Employees at the Commission will persecute the person for you and will even send you progress reports. In this way the Commission has become a vehicle for anonymous tipoffs –  a process which is open to abuse. This 2006 Act goes against everything that a civilised society is supposed to stand for. The Charity Commission is in effect accountable only to itself. It is apparently accountable to 'the Office of the Third Sector' at 10 Downing Street, which presunably exercises no effective oversight. This is wholly non-democratic. I would like to urge the Coalition Government to repeal the Charities Act 2006 as a matter of urgency.

Why is this idea important?

This nefarious Act gave the Charity Commission supra-legal powers which are contrary to natural justice, contrary to 1000 years of British justice, and which are in defiance of human rights. The Act gives the Commission the power to intercept communications, enter and search without a warrant, seize without need to justify, and carry out investigations on a 'guilty until proven innocent' basis by using an inquisitorial process where evidence of accusations does not need to be produced. (Freedom of Information requests for documents explaining accusations can be declined by non-qualified legal advisors working for the Commission who have no experience in dealing with such matters.) The investigatory processes of the Charity Commission can easily be hijacked in private causes by anyone with enough money to pay an expensive charity lawyer to put together a dossier of complaint. There is no need for the complaints to be true, they can be made up as part of a smear campaign or business or personal vendetta. As long as the dossier is professionally compiled and the lawyer accepts what his client tells him and uncritically repeats it without any attempt at verification, the Charity Commission will generally launch an investigation. If you hate somebody and discover that he or she is a trustee of a registered charity, and are prepared to pay a lawyer, you can launch a vendetta against that person and it will be carried on for you by public funds.  Employees at the Commission will persecute the person for you and will even send you progress reports. In this way the Commission has become a vehicle for anonymous tipoffs –  a process which is open to abuse. This 2006 Act goes against everything that a civilised society is supposed to stand for. The Charity Commission is in effect accountable only to itself. It is apparently accountable to 'the Office of the Third Sector' at 10 Downing Street, which presunably exercises no effective oversight. This is wholly non-democratic. I would like to urge the Coalition Government to repeal the Charities Act 2006 as a matter of urgency.

charity laws and regulations

 

My wife assists a charity that is also a Company limited by Guarantee.  It has income of £85,000 a year and spends all of that each year helping disabled members of the public.  It is forced to waste over £1,000 each year on an independent examination of its books and in producing a set of reports and accounts consisting of over 20 pages.

 

Why is this idea important?

 

My wife assists a charity that is also a Company limited by Guarantee.  It has income of £85,000 a year and spends all of that each year helping disabled members of the public.  It is forced to waste over £1,000 each year on an independent examination of its books and in producing a set of reports and accounts consisting of over 20 pages.

 

Overhaul the rules for charities.

Charities are required to be for ‘public benefit’. ‘Public benefit’ is not defined in such a way that the activities of the charity need actually be in the long term interests of society. This is particularly the case for religious charities.

Why is this idea important?

Charities are required to be for ‘public benefit’. ‘Public benefit’ is not defined in such a way that the activities of the charity need actually be in the long term interests of society. This is particularly the case for religious charities.

Exempt charities from all VAT

If you want to support charities, ask the government to exempt charities from paying VAT.  It will not only be provide them with real source of income, it will also save them a lot of paperworks and headaches around the numerous rules guiding VAT rules relating to charities. 

Why is this idea important?

If you want to support charities, ask the government to exempt charities from paying VAT.  It will not only be provide them with real source of income, it will also save them a lot of paperworks and headaches around the numerous rules guiding VAT rules relating to charities. 

Remove the charity status of private schools

Frankly, it is outrageous that private schools, already puplulated in their majority by over-priviledged children, should benefit further through their charitable status – not to mention all that lovely Gift Aid – while state schools, a stone's throw away, are struggling just to maintain their buildings. Private schools have turned education into a BUSINESS – they should be taxed as such, and all that money plowed back into the state sector (and I mean state sector, not those ridiculous academies you are all so proud of). Education is not a matter of 'choice', it is a matter of right. Private schools, by their very existence, undermine the right of the vast majority of our children. Surely the purpose of a charity is to provide to those who are in need of help. Can't quite see how that applies the the children of the over-rich. So hard having a mummy and daddy that can provide hundreds of thousands of pounds at the drop of a hat. And attending a school with beautifully maintained buildings, vasts playing fields, swimming pools, sports courts, theatres, spectacular art and music facilities, state-of-the-art science blocks, etc must be such a struggle.

Why is this idea important?

Frankly, it is outrageous that private schools, already puplulated in their majority by over-priviledged children, should benefit further through their charitable status – not to mention all that lovely Gift Aid – while state schools, a stone's throw away, are struggling just to maintain their buildings. Private schools have turned education into a BUSINESS – they should be taxed as such, and all that money plowed back into the state sector (and I mean state sector, not those ridiculous academies you are all so proud of). Education is not a matter of 'choice', it is a matter of right. Private schools, by their very existence, undermine the right of the vast majority of our children. Surely the purpose of a charity is to provide to those who are in need of help. Can't quite see how that applies the the children of the over-rich. So hard having a mummy and daddy that can provide hundreds of thousands of pounds at the drop of a hat. And attending a school with beautifully maintained buildings, vasts playing fields, swimming pools, sports courts, theatres, spectacular art and music facilities, state-of-the-art science blocks, etc must be such a struggle.

Relaxation of restrictions on ability of charities to invest.

Charities are told that Banks are restricted by regulations in regard to the type of deposit accounts they may offer, and therefore the rate of interest they provide. These 'regulations' should be made less rigid and more flexible, so that charities may earn a reasonable rate of return. The rates offered by the Banks in no way reflect the returns the banks themselves earn by using the depositors monies. 

Why is this idea important?

Charities are told that Banks are restricted by regulations in regard to the type of deposit accounts they may offer, and therefore the rate of interest they provide. These 'regulations' should be made less rigid and more flexible, so that charities may earn a reasonable rate of return. The rates offered by the Banks in no way reflect the returns the banks themselves earn by using the depositors monies. 

Repeal Section 70 of the Charities Act 2006 – Cut all public funding to ASH etc

Action and Smoking on Health (ASH) is one of the most powerful charities in the land, lobbying MPs and powerful Medical groups to adopt their position. However, ASH is heavily funded by the pharmaceutical industry (who manufacture nicotine replacement products), and State funding. Whether this funding be direct or channelled via the NHS or other charities such as Cancer Research UK and the BHF, the end result is that most of its multi-million pound budget comes from the taxpayer. In reality, last year, this charity only received £4975 in voluntary donations from the public (and a single £10,000 legacy) and its Scottish branch only had 0.2% of its funding come from voluntary donation.
Under section 70 of the Charities Act (2006) it is permitted for Ministers to “give financial assistance to any charitable, benevolent or philanthropic institution in respect of any of the institution’s activities which directly or indirectly benefit the whole or any part of England (whether or not they also benefit any other area).” What this means in practice is that a Charity can be funded by any number of vested interests and STILL claim huge amounts of taxpayer’s money as long as it claim that it is “working in the public benefit.”
Organisations like ASH can therefore maintain their charitable status despite having demonstrable links with the Pharmaceutical industry that fund it and benefit from its actions. It also means that taxpayers’ money can be channelled, without question, to any “charity” that can claim to be working in the public interest. This is not only a waste of taxpayer’s money, it can mean that charities can become little more than unaccountable quangos working as unofficial arms of the Government.
Charities like ASH should either represent their true popularity with the public by attempting to survive on public donations or they should be wholly funded by the pharmaceutical industry so that everyone is clear on its background and agenda… and thus lose its charitable status. When the Leader of this organisation brags in a national newspaper about performing “a confidence trick” on Parliament with regard to the Smoking Ban, the legitimacy of taxpayers’ money being used to fund them needs to be addressed.
Given the disproportionate level of power this organisation wields and given our straitened economic times, all State funding to this organisation should be withdrawn, and repealing section 70 of the Charities Act 2006 would accomplish this.

Why is this idea important?

Action and Smoking on Health (ASH) is one of the most powerful charities in the land, lobbying MPs and powerful Medical groups to adopt their position. However, ASH is heavily funded by the pharmaceutical industry (who manufacture nicotine replacement products), and State funding. Whether this funding be direct or channelled via the NHS or other charities such as Cancer Research UK and the BHF, the end result is that most of its multi-million pound budget comes from the taxpayer. In reality, last year, this charity only received £4975 in voluntary donations from the public (and a single £10,000 legacy) and its Scottish branch only had 0.2% of its funding come from voluntary donation.
Under section 70 of the Charities Act (2006) it is permitted for Ministers to “give financial assistance to any charitable, benevolent or philanthropic institution in respect of any of the institution’s activities which directly or indirectly benefit the whole or any part of England (whether or not they also benefit any other area).” What this means in practice is that a Charity can be funded by any number of vested interests and STILL claim huge amounts of taxpayer’s money as long as it claim that it is “working in the public benefit.”
Organisations like ASH can therefore maintain their charitable status despite having demonstrable links with the Pharmaceutical industry that fund it and benefit from its actions. It also means that taxpayers’ money can be channelled, without question, to any “charity” that can claim to be working in the public interest. This is not only a waste of taxpayer’s money, it can mean that charities can become little more than unaccountable quangos working as unofficial arms of the Government.
Charities like ASH should either represent their true popularity with the public by attempting to survive on public donations or they should be wholly funded by the pharmaceutical industry so that everyone is clear on its background and agenda… and thus lose its charitable status. When the Leader of this organisation brags in a national newspaper about performing “a confidence trick” on Parliament with regard to the Smoking Ban, the legitimacy of taxpayers’ money being used to fund them needs to be addressed.
Given the disproportionate level of power this organisation wields and given our straitened economic times, all State funding to this organisation should be withdrawn, and repealing section 70 of the Charities Act 2006 would accomplish this.

Let the Voluntary Sector Set its Own Standards

Voluntary organisations have to abide by a raft of standards to get any funding or recognition. Most of these are written by lawyers who have never set foot in a voluntary organisation or sub-statutory funders who want excuses to stop giving out money to make their lives easier. Consequently, although it is vital to have standards themselves, the ones in existence can be irrelevant, counterproductive or downright harmful, preventing organisations from providing valuable services for no good reason. They can lead to absurd situations like people who have come for a service being forced to fill in a questionnaire after receiving that service, thinking they are being spied on and refusing to come to the organisation again. It is also the case that the most determined criminals prosper under this system, as they know how to play the game and misrepresent things like misuse of funds and fraud because the rules of how to misbehave are laid out for them in the standards!

Though it is difficult to get agreed standards, a more responsive system which reflected genuine ability and capacity could be developed by INVOLVING VOLUNTARY SECTOR REPRESENTATIVES in various fields rather than expecting the voluntary setor to jump to standards INVENTED BY EVERYONE ELSE. This is the root of the problem – it is always assumed that everyone else is more capable than people in the voluntary sector, though the performance of other types of organisation (including government) does not support this theory.

 

Why is this idea important?

Voluntary organisations have to abide by a raft of standards to get any funding or recognition. Most of these are written by lawyers who have never set foot in a voluntary organisation or sub-statutory funders who want excuses to stop giving out money to make their lives easier. Consequently, although it is vital to have standards themselves, the ones in existence can be irrelevant, counterproductive or downright harmful, preventing organisations from providing valuable services for no good reason. They can lead to absurd situations like people who have come for a service being forced to fill in a questionnaire after receiving that service, thinking they are being spied on and refusing to come to the organisation again. It is also the case that the most determined criminals prosper under this system, as they know how to play the game and misrepresent things like misuse of funds and fraud because the rules of how to misbehave are laid out for them in the standards!

Though it is difficult to get agreed standards, a more responsive system which reflected genuine ability and capacity could be developed by INVOLVING VOLUNTARY SECTOR REPRESENTATIVES in various fields rather than expecting the voluntary setor to jump to standards INVENTED BY EVERYONE ELSE. This is the root of the problem – it is always assumed that everyone else is more capable than people in the voluntary sector, though the performance of other types of organisation (including government) does not support this theory.

 

Third Sector Funding

Ensure that Pubic Sector funding to Third Sector organisations is paid up-front rather than in arrears. A large number of Third Sector organisations experience serious cashflow problems when their Public Sector funding is paid either monthly, quarterly (or sometimes even longer in arrears). After all, when making any purchase or paying for any service we normally expect to pay for it at the time rather than months later. Why should funding given to purchase Third Sector organisations services be treated any differently?

Why is this idea important?

Ensure that Pubic Sector funding to Third Sector organisations is paid up-front rather than in arrears. A large number of Third Sector organisations experience serious cashflow problems when their Public Sector funding is paid either monthly, quarterly (or sometimes even longer in arrears). After all, when making any purchase or paying for any service we normally expect to pay for it at the time rather than months later. Why should funding given to purchase Third Sector organisations services be treated any differently?

charity registration

I am the trustee of a small charity. Because our income is now slightly in excess of £5000 the Charities Act 1993 requires us to register with the Charity Commission. The Act permits the Secretary of State to make an Order increasing this figure. If the sum was doubled to £10000 this would remove the burden of registration from many small charities

Why is this idea important?

I am the trustee of a small charity. Because our income is now slightly in excess of £5000 the Charities Act 1993 requires us to register with the Charity Commission. The Act permits the Secretary of State to make an Order increasing this figure. If the sum was doubled to £10000 this would remove the burden of registration from many small charities

Council auditors should be able to audit charity accounts

Many councils (particularly parish councils) are trustees of charities.  At present Council  auditors can't audit these charity accounts because they have no power to sign the required charity audit declaration, so councils have to get their charity accounts separately audited.

Give Council auditors the power to audit any charitiies for which the Council is a trustee and do this at the same time as the Council audit.

  

Why is this idea important?

Many councils (particularly parish councils) are trustees of charities.  At present Council  auditors can't audit these charity accounts because they have no power to sign the required charity audit declaration, so councils have to get their charity accounts separately audited.

Give Council auditors the power to audit any charitiies for which the Council is a trustee and do this at the same time as the Council audit.

  

Charities – why do we have to pay VAT?

As the Executive Director of a UK based Charity (Institute for Human Rights and Business) which is recognized as an expert institution by the UK Government and receives support from a number of Governments around the world, I am perplexed by the VAT rules as they apply to charities – as is our accountant.

The best financial advice we have is that we should not register for VAT given that only a minority of our operational work is conducted in the UK (and nearly all our funding comes as donations) and obviously the book-keeping cost of registered and maintaining VAT records is significant. Yet, we are having to pay VAT on most of our administrative costs here in the UK.

It does beg the rather naive question as to why Charities are required to pay VAT at all. If our role is really one of public purpose (and perhaps this is not always the case for every Charity – e.g. some of the private schools with charity status) then it would it not be a wonderful thing to free us from paying VAT at all – allowing this resource to be channeled into our work – in our case in many emerging and developing countries as well as the UK.

I guess it might work by all interested Charities receiving a special VAT number – and being able to reclaim all VAT on a quarterly basis, but not required to charge VAT to others. It will also assist in dealings with other contractors based in the EU – to whom we currently have to pay VAT if not so registered in the UK.

Why is this idea important?

As the Executive Director of a UK based Charity (Institute for Human Rights and Business) which is recognized as an expert institution by the UK Government and receives support from a number of Governments around the world, I am perplexed by the VAT rules as they apply to charities – as is our accountant.

The best financial advice we have is that we should not register for VAT given that only a minority of our operational work is conducted in the UK (and nearly all our funding comes as donations) and obviously the book-keeping cost of registered and maintaining VAT records is significant. Yet, we are having to pay VAT on most of our administrative costs here in the UK.

It does beg the rather naive question as to why Charities are required to pay VAT at all. If our role is really one of public purpose (and perhaps this is not always the case for every Charity – e.g. some of the private schools with charity status) then it would it not be a wonderful thing to free us from paying VAT at all – allowing this resource to be channeled into our work – in our case in many emerging and developing countries as well as the UK.

I guess it might work by all interested Charities receiving a special VAT number – and being able to reclaim all VAT on a quarterly basis, but not required to charge VAT to others. It will also assist in dealings with other contractors based in the EU – to whom we currently have to pay VAT if not so registered in the UK.

1p per week from every employed person in the uk

60 million people in UK.  Say, 30 million work.  1p per week = 50p a year roughly.

£15 million per year to spend on charity.

£10 million for UK

£5 million for 3rd world.

Surely no one would object to 1p ? And, if they do, they can always opt out.

If the whole world did this, you would see an end to poverty.

Why is this idea important?

60 million people in UK.  Say, 30 million work.  1p per week = 50p a year roughly.

£15 million per year to spend on charity.

£10 million for UK

£5 million for 3rd world.

Surely no one would object to 1p ? And, if they do, they can always opt out.

If the whole world did this, you would see an end to poverty.

Remove restrictions on village social events

The last Government  dramatically  restricted the number of events involving alcohol ( dances, parties, concerts, quizzes etc) that can be run in a village hall per year. This has affected the viability of halls which are a keystone of rural communities. It has also cut off funds to those village bodies relying on that income and also the social life of often isolated communities. IF the motive was to help village pubs it has had no benefit, because those attending events in the hall are not in the main pub "regulars". There was no public order motive as the average age of atttendees would generally render that out of the question. This was -as in so many cases- silly legislation imposed for something to do. Remove please!

Why is this idea important?

The last Government  dramatically  restricted the number of events involving alcohol ( dances, parties, concerts, quizzes etc) that can be run in a village hall per year. This has affected the viability of halls which are a keystone of rural communities. It has also cut off funds to those village bodies relying on that income and also the social life of often isolated communities. IF the motive was to help village pubs it has had no benefit, because those attending events in the hall are not in the main pub "regulars". There was no public order motive as the average age of atttendees would generally render that out of the question. This was -as in so many cases- silly legislation imposed for something to do. Remove please!