Not the budget....

 

Hundreds of articles, blogposts, commentaries and critiques will be published in response to George Osborne's second budget. This isn't one of them.

It's not that I have nothing to say or that the budget is unimportant but that my tuppence worth of comment is of little matter. If I say I like this and hate that it will change nothing and serve little to advance those things I want to see done (or more often, not done).

Instead I want to remark on the important matter of philanthropy - hence the picture of the gates to Foster Park in Denholme. The park was a gift to Denholme from William Foster in 1912 - hence the name - and the gates and railings were given in the 1920s (to mark the coming of age for William's son). The Foster's were, of course, the dominant employer in the village and having gained so much from the place chose to put some of that back.

I suppose we could get all sniffy and say that the Foster family could afford all that generosity, that their riches were built on the back of workers in Denholme and that they really were obligated to "put something back". But that's really the point of it all - poor people may be generous with time and kindness but only the wealthy are able to be so generous with cash or land (or both).

Today, when we want parks, halls or playgrounds we turn to the modern patron of all that is good - the government. And the result of this new tradition is that old philanthropy is pushed aside. The developer is not minded to pass over part of his profit to local beneficiaries when the government - through "section 106 agreements" or other impositions - has already extracted large sums from his pockets. And the businessman is less likely to make the sort of gifts that William Foster made when he sees an ungrateful government taking vast taxes and imposing ever more onerous and expensive regulations.

Philanthopy died as a result of government not because the character of wealthy people changed. And that government with its "progressive" taxes and special imposts on the rich says to such people: "your riches offend us, you are not welcome, just leave your cash for us." So the rich don't give - not in the manner of enhancing their local place. There are a few real benefactors - Barrie Pettman in Patrington, for example - but mostly the rich have turned their back on such giving. Fed up with the sniffy response of government, annoyed by ever higher taxes, the wealthy no longer play the part they played in times past.

For philanthropy to work, we have to celebrate wealth and success - to recognise that the modern day Fosters are there and should be encouraged, supported and smiled upon. And their generosity encouraged rather than scorned.

For philanthropy to work we have to allow space for giving and, above all, treat the wealthy as a national treasure rather than a group to be enviously taxed until they depart to warmer, friendlier shores.

.....

Giving by pressing a button isn't a selfless act of charity - it's a voluntary tax

Charity – that great virtue. The idea of giving without expectation of return, of using our skills, talents and hard cash for the betterment of our less fortunate brothers, for the preservation of the good in the world and for the promotion of other virtues.


How that idea has corrupted and been corrupted. To the point where our Government takes it upon itself to promote the generality of giving – indeed, a random giving to charities that undermines the very idea of that great virtue – I must admit I thought better of Francis Maude:

Cabinet Office minister Frances Maude said a new 'giving' culture could generate £4 billion for charitable causes if people agreed to give one per cent of their income.

The act of charity is demeaned by its sole definition in terms of cash. It gives succour to those righteous left-wing apologists for big government who dislike the idea of good works – it is the puritan idea of salvation through grace made real. Now Mr Maude proposes to orchestrate, manipulate and centralise our charitable acts thereby creating great charitable institutions under the control of whom? The banks? The Government? The Big Lottery?

There are, in my thinking three ways in which the charity of good folk does its work:

1. By the government enforcing ‘charity’ through the tax system – the charities, rather than rely on their own fundraising are commissioned by the Government and its agents to do ‘good work’ as defined by that government.


2. Through gifts to charitable organisations that employ people to undertake the ‘good works’ on our behalf. Money often given with little thought and no consideration of how and to whose benefit those gifts will be directed


3. Through our own actions directed at the needy cause – the few pence we give to a beggar, the fiver we freely give to some poor soul who has missed the train and can’t get home and the hours you might spend volunteering

It does seem to me that, while there’s a case to be made for each of these acts – only the third option is assuredly and genuinely charitable. Edward Rudolf really did go out into the streets of Lambeth to search out waifs and strays and Sue Ryder did volunteer to help the displaced after the Second World War. These were actions that required a degree of effort, of sacrifice and of commitment – something that isn’t encompassed by pressing an ATM button or dropping 50p in the collection box.

If the Government really is serious about charity – and I believe that it is – then the approach should be to condemn the negatives laid on charity by the left. To refute the argument that charity is somehow patronising the poor or that individual acts of generosity – whether in time, cash or spirit – are somehow made necessary only by the inadequacy of government or the paucity of tax income.

And the Government needs to face down those who wish to create great funds under the control of an elite – an essentially left-wing elite. We do not need m ore Big Lottery Funds, Clore Foundations, Comic Reliefs or Children in Needs. We need more individual acts of kindness, generosity and support.

So if you’re planning a charitable act, walk out your front door and look around at how you can help out where you live – perhaps there’s an old people’s lunch club where you can help out or a local soup kitchen. Maybe there’s a junior football club in need of sponsorship. The causes are there and you can help them directly, you can see what you give put to its benefit and you can get the pleasure of real charity.

....