Give stuff to charity, demand the money they make! "It's like a backwards Robin Hood"

[Badnik Mechanic]

About a month ago I cleaned out a draw in my room and my mum took the contents to a charity shop. It was basically a bag full of old toys which have little to no value online, also included were a womans handbag and a couple of my mums old clothes that she didn't want anymore.

 

It was taken to one of the heart disease research charities, don't remember the exact name.

 

Oddly, my mum was asked for her address otherwise they couldn't take the goods. She gave it and left... Yesterday... we got a letter through the post, from the chairty shop.

 

The charity shop thanked us for our donation and told us 'We wanted to thank you for your donation. Your handbag sold for £46. We are telling you this as so far this is the highest selling item you donated. By law we can claim back £10 from Gift Aid.

 

We are also writing to you to inform you that the law has changed which means we have to notify you if a single item sells over £50. If this ever occurs you can claim the money back from us should you wish to do so."

 

 

... ... ... What?

 

Let me see if I understand this... it's now law here in the UK, that if you GIVE stuff to chairty, they can sell it as usual... only you can now legally claim the money back if it sells for over £50, and the shop has to notify you if it does sell an item for over £50...

 

This is now law!?

 

... .. .. Am I the only one who thinks this is absolutely outrageous in every way!? Not to mention a huge cost for chairty groups that they really shouldn't have to be doing!?

 

Thoughts SSMB. Is anyone else as angry? Or am I stuck in my old ways?

[Indigo Rush]

I personally believe that if you give money to charity, it should stay at the charity. 

 

Unless of course the charity proves to be a fraud, but that's not exactly the issue here. 

[Linkabel]

I remember hearing a conversation about this, didn't really have time to pay attention to it but I think the gist of it was that it gave the chance for people who donated the stuff to get their money back just in case it turned out that you needed it after all.

 

I really don't find it as outrageous because at the end of the day since it's up to the person if they want to get the money or not. Something tells me that if you donated the stuff that you really don't care about the money. The law is a little bit stupid though.

[Amomynous]

I also think this is messed up, once you've given something away to someone intending that it be theirs,it's theirs, they shouldn't be legally obliged in any way.
In some situations the intent may be questionable, but when giving something to a charity shop it's quite clear.

Edited July 7, 2013 by Amomynous

[Tani Coyote]

Well, imagine if you gave something you didn't have much worth in and then it turned out to be worth a million dollars. One may call it greedy, but is it really unreasonable to want at least a cut of that? A piece of paper turns out to have historical value, you handed over something that had old stock ownership certificates in it, etc.

I can see what this law is for; every so often a significant sum of money might be made off an item that the person thought was worthless. Would you not feel cheated if you gave a person some land and then they discovered oil there right after? You could say you consented to the risk, but let's be honest here: people love money. Sometimes principle has to give way to reality (I believe incest should be legal but that'll never happen, I believe abstinence only should be a governing policy of sexual behavior but that's unrealistic, etc.).

Regardless, taking a miniscule sum back from the charity would be fairly despicable. Though I see no reason to render it illegal; what's legal and what's moral should be separate.

[tenchibr]

What happens if it's not given to charity? If my friend gives me his copy of Nintendo World Championship and I sell it  for $400... Do I have to tell him?

[Potada]

It's called a charity for a reason. If you're giving something to an organization like that, you shouldn't expect anything back (except maybe a thank you). Besides, there are places that let you take tax write-offs for giving stuff away, so...yeah.

 

Also, I think a lot of people would have an inkling on if they found the Holy Grail or not. There are some exceptions, I'm sure, but still.

[Tani Coyote]

What happens if it's not given to charity? If my friend gives me his copy of Nintendo World Championship and I sell it  for $400... Do I have to tell him?

 

Oh dear god that would get insane quick. I'm sure that could just be chalked up to simple market activity. As a charity's job is not to make a huge profit (they are inherently opposed to accumulations of wealth), that's likely why the double standard.

 

Also, I think a lot of people would have an inkling on if they found the Holy Grail or not. There are some exceptions, I'm sure, but still.

And those exceptions are what laws such as this are supposed to protect. I doubt the common person really wants their money back, or they wouldn't have given it in the first place.

It ultimately sounds like it's meant to protect the doctrine of informed consent; you might have undervalued something and so got rid of it. A simple, easy mistake, as one man's trash is another's treasure. It's why we ban insider trading, for example; the flow of information is not fair and thus prevents others from making equitable decisions.

Say a father has some comic books from his childhood; he doesn't think anything of them so he gives them away. Then he finds out they're worth 10,000 dollars. Maybe he's an idiot, yes, but legally he did not make an informed decision giving away that money.

Have to protect the financially incompetent in society, just as we need to protect the bad guys.

[iDEATH]

This is fucking ridiculous. I give to charity regularly and would never expect to take anything back like that. What's the point?

Not to mention the costs to the charities being forced to pump out these leaflets all the time. Not given in anything for a while now, I wonder if they'll ask for my address next time too.

 

It's very rare that I'd buy an item from a charity shop for £50 but if it ever happens now I'll request the price be put down to £49.99 and I'll put the rest of the money in the tub by the till

[TheGerkuman]

I have to admit, if I'd given away something to a charity shop and it ended up being worth a lot of money I would be kicking myself. On the other hand, there was probably other, much more sensible ways of doing this.

[Tani Coyote]

I have to admit, if I'd given away something to a charity shop and it ended up being worth a lot of money I would be kicking myself. On the other hand, there was probably other, much more sensible ways of doing this.

I think 50 pounds probably does waste a considerable bit of money on the charity's part; I can only imagine how many objects will be valued at that much. I'd have made it at least several hundred. It lets people who undervalued their own items have a chance to get them back, while keeping the red tape charities have to deal with to a minimum.

If nothing else, the person who gave the item away should be able to file a claim with the government. The item obviously wasn't sentimental in value or it wouldn't have been given away in the first place. Rather than giving the charity extra hurdles and undermining their business (as they will have to recoup that money somehow), leave the charity be and take their notice to the government for compensation. As the government has no shortage of money, this is a better idea and serves social good better.

Edited July 8, 2013 by Ogilvie Maurice

[JezMM]

Surely there must be SOME kind of reasoning behind this?  I wouldn't even know where to look for said reasoning and I doubt it'd be GOOD reasoning but still that seems totally random.

 

The only thing I think one should be able to get back from a charity shop is an unsold item, in case it was donated by mistake (once sold though it's too late naturally, they can hardly track down a customer).  It wouldn't surprise me if such is the case already though, if not by standard service then by most charity shop staff being nice people.

[iDEATH]

I think 50 pounds probably does waste a considerable bit of money on the charity's part; I can only imagine how many objects will be valued at that much. I'd have made it at least several hundred. It lets people who undervalued their own items have a chance to get them back, while keeping the red tape charities have to deal with to a minimum.

If nothing else, the person who gave the item away should be able to file a claim with the government. The item obviously wasn't sentimental in value or it wouldn't have been given away in the first place. Rather than giving the charity extra hurdles and undermining their business (as they will have to recoup that money somehow), leave the charity be and take their notice to the government for compensation. As the government has no shortage of money, this is a better idea and serves social good better.

 

I don't see why that option should be availible at all.

 

If anything, there should be a database in store, if you donate, your items go into a database under your name so you can choose to take them back if you want, perhaps for a small prie, 20p or something. If the item's sold, tough, it's gone.

Even this idea doesn't appeal to me mind you, just think it's a better alternative to grabbing money from a charity.

[Tani Coyote]

If anything, there should be a database in store, if you donate, your items go into a database under your name so you can choose to take them back if you want, perhaps for a small prie, 20p or something. If the item's sold, tough, it's gone.

Even this idea doesn't appeal to me mind you, just think it's a better alternative to grabbing money from a charity.

Which is why I suggest having the government back up claims; it relieves the charity of the burden of paying back the price. Of course, bump up the claims to avoid insanity. It also reduces the amount of notices said charity must send out.

If you give an item away it's clear that it had no sentimental value, so the business is purely financial.

Let us also consider the well-to-do are not the only ones who give to charity. Many poor people surely give things they do not need anymore away; children's clothes for instance. If I was poor and gave away something that was worth a few thousand bucks without knowing it, I sure as heck would want it back.

Ultimately we have to balance our needs versus society's. Which is why I insist the best compromise is government-backed damages. It's a fair shake to the private party, and to the poor. Remember the insanity after Bernie Madoff was arrested? The government around here actually went around recollecting funds from all the charities he donated to so as to reimburse all those he damaged, rather than assuming the debt themselves (bear in mind the government here assumes the burden of debt in case of bank failure, which makes this taking money from charities thing twice as messed up). The government has more resources than anyone else, and this is why they are always an ideal person to saddle with debt in controversial cases with money.

Edited July 8, 2013 by Ogilvie Maurice

[iDEATH]

Which is why I suggest having the government back up claims; it relieves the charity of the burden of paying back the price. Of course, bump up the claims to avoid insanity. It also reduces the amount of notices said charity must send out.

If you give an item away it's clear that it had no sentimental value, so the business is purely financial.

Let us also consider the well-to-do are not the only ones who give to charity. Many poor people surely give things they do not need anymore away; children's clothes for instance. If I was poor and gave away something that was worth a few thousand bucks without knowing it, I sure as heck would want it back.

Ultimately we have to balance our needs versus society's. Which is why I insist the best compromise is government-backed damages. It's a fair shake to the private party, and to the poor. Remember the insanity after Bernie Madoff was arrested? The government around here actually went around recollecting funds from all the charities he donated to so as to reimburse all those he damaged, rather than assuming the debt themselves (bear in mind the government here assumes the burden of debt in case of bank failure, which makes this taking money from charities thing twice as messed up). The government has more resources than anyone else, and this is why they are always an ideal person to saddle with debt in controversial cases with money.

 

Unless I'm missing something, I don't understand what, a £2'000 book for example, donated to a Marie Curie Cancer Care store or barnados or oxfam or whatever, would have to do with the government. The shop has nothing to do with the government.....

 

Sorry if i'm being stupid here but I don't see the connection....

 

Anywho, I would want something back if I donated  it and it turned out to be worth a lot. Of course I would, but I wouldn't be entitled to it. I gave it away to charity knowing full well they intend to sell it on for as much money if they can get for it. 

[Tani Coyote]

Unless I'm missing something, I don't understand what, a £2'000 book for example, donated to a Marie Curie Cancer Care store or barnados or oxfam or whatever, would have to do with the government. The shop has nothing to do with the government.....

 

Sorry if i'm being stupid here but I don't see the connection....

It's a compromise to let people get back their money without burdening the charity.

It's similar to the bank insurance here: if a bank goes under, the government is obliged to pay all lost deposits up to a large amount.

In some cases it's in the public interest for the government to assume debts. In the case of banks it's to keep the financial system from imploding; in this case it's to avoid giving a non-profit organisation a massive burden.

Alternatively one should be able to write off the entire amount on their taxes, and possibly receive a check from the government if the write-off exceeds liabilities.

[iDEATH]

It's a compromise to let people get back their money without burdening the charity.

It's similar to the bank insurance here: if a bank goes under, the government is obliged to pay all lost deposits up to a large amount.

In some cases it's in the public interest for the government to assume debts. In the case of banks it's to keep the financial system from imploding; in this case it's to avoid giving a non-profit organisation a massive burden.

Alternatively one should be able to write off the entire amount on their taxes, and possibly receive a check from the government if the write-off exceeds liabilities.

 

ok I'm getting you now

Still not sure I agree though. I don't think either the charity or the government should be forced to reimburse you in instances like we've  discussed.

Far as I see it, you've done a good deed donating the item, if you lose out tough. If you wanted to make money off something, check ebay for how much it's going for before giving it away. it's your loss as far as I'm concerned.

[Tani Coyote]

Far as I see it, you've done a good deed donating the item, if you lose out tough. If you wanted to make money off something, check ebay for how much it's going for before giving it away. it's your loss as far as I'm concerned.

You might have still undervalued it, however. Normally if an item is given to charity, it is explicitly because it doesn't have much value (to oneself, anyway; one man's trash is another's treasure as the saying goes). It's an ugly truth, but ultimately everyone pursues their own interests; if one isn't already wealthy, most don't plan on giving away thousands of dollars or pounds worth of goods.

I've heard more than one story of a savvy person buying something at a yard sale for dirt cheap (which they then turn around and make a massive profit on); they are sure to not let the person know they're sitting on something valuable. Many people have no idea what they are in possession of.

Though the second case does raise a legal issue. How do we make taking something undervalued back from charity legal while not doing the same for a yard sale or other private transaction?

[Your Vest Friend]

I'd still say it was tough luck for the person who gave it to charity. 

[Tani Coyote]

I'd still say it was tough luck for the person who gave it to charity.

Is it not unfair to saddle someone with the burden of an uninformed decision?

If I was poor and gave away something that I no longer needed, and it was worth a considerable sum, I'd most certainly like that money. One could say I did not look up the value, but that's not addressing an important detail: I had no reason to presume it had value. I was under the assumption an item had little worth, and so I gave it away in the hopes someone else could make use of it. One could say that I shouldn't have given it away in the first place, but why would I keep something worthless? I acted in good faith, and was wronged regardless.

Of course taking the money back wouldn't be fair to the other people who benefit from it. Which is why I propose the government paying the fee; this way both parties still benefit.

Never mind I believe a lot of charity could be replaced by government benefits anyway.

[Stacy]

I thought Charity Shops didn't flog really expensive items? I am the only who doesn't like the idea they are probably getting there prices from ebay? 

Edited July 9, 2013 by BW199148

[Tani Coyote]

I thought Charity Shops didn't flog really expensive items? I am the only who doesn't like the idea they are probably getting there prices from ebay? 

Now that I think about this law does rein in possible charity abuse. Charities sell stuff at low prices if they don't give it away, so it makes sense that if an object nets enough money it really isn't much of a charitable act. Given that you could have sold it instead and had that money to improve yourself or your family's position.

Though yes, I do wonder where the prices come from. I'm guessing for higher priced items the idea is that more fortunate people will buy the item at its bargain price (relatively), and the proceeds will go to the charitable cause?

[iDEATH]

I thought Charity Shops didn't flog really expensive items? I am the only who doesn't like the idea they are probably getting there prices from ebay? 

 

That's actually the case. There's an Oxfam in my town that used to have a fourth edition copy of the watchmen trade paperback. (smiley face cover but with the original colouring) it's not massivly valuable, I got a copy, in better condition for a fiver from ebay, but they were selling it for £45, when i asked I was told they'd found it for that price online.

 

BTW, can anybody find anything about this £50 notification online? I searched and could only find a link to this topic Hogfather, could you possibly scan the letter or something if you still have it?