Tax efficient giving awareness levels 'surprisingly' low

Fundraising | Celina Ribeiro | 28 Apr 2009

Five million more people could be encouraged to give tax effectively, but awareness remains "shockingly low" among young people, according the Charities Aid Foundation (CAF).

CAF admitted it was surprised by how low awareness of tax efficient giving is, as it released a report today showing that just two thirds of the adult population know they can donate to charity in a tax effective manner.

Less than a quarter of young people are aware that they are able to give tax effectively, a figure which Richard Harrison, director of research at CAF, said was “shockingly low” and a “missed opportunity”. “It is far below what we would like to see,” he said.

Unprompted, just 1 per cent of all surveyed listed legacies as a tax effective giving mechanism, while fewer than one in ten named payroll giving. Gift aid fared better, with nearly a third of the public identifying the scheme as an efficient way to give.

“Gift aid is pretty healthy”, said Harrison, but added that the organisation was “very surprised and a bit worried” about the level of awareness around payroll giving and legacies.

While awareness was higher among people in higher tax brackets (90 per cent said they knew about tax effective giving), the survey found that the processes involved in giving tax efficiently acted as a deterrent.

The proportion of higher earning individuals who would consider claiming 20 per cent back on donations made to charity at the end of the financial year more than halved once the specifics of the process were explained.

Campaign call

Nevertheless, Harrison estimated that a further 5 million people could be brought in to tax effective giving if they were made aware of the schemes.

CAF has called on the sector and government to work together to develop campaigns to educate donors about tax efficient giving and indicated that any campaign could involve television and viral online marketing.

It has also reiterated previous calls for the reintroduction of opt-out approach to gift aid, noting that while the scheme brought the sector £900m last year, a further £752m went unclaimed.

Directory: Charities Aid Foundation
Who's Who: Celina Ribeiro

Comments

[Cancel] | Reply to:

Name *

Email *

Organisation

Job Title

Comments *

Verification *

* Please read our Community Standards

Close »

Community Standards

The civilsociety.co.uk community and comments board is intended as a platform for informed and civilised debate.

We hope to encourage a broad range of views, however, there are standards that we expect commentators to uphold. We reserve the right to delete or amend any comments that do not adhere to these standards.

We welcome:

Robust but respectful debate
Strongly held opinions
Intelligent relevant discussion
The sharing of relevant experiences
New participants

We will not publish:

Rude, threatening, offensive, obscene or abusive language, or links to such material
Links to commercial organisations or spam postings. The comments board is not an advertising platform
The posting of contact details for yourself or others
Comments intended for malicious purpose or mindless abuse
Comments purporting to be from another person or organisation under false pretences
Gratuitous criticism, commentary or self-promotion
Any material which breaches copyright or privacy laws, or could be considered libellous
The use of the comments board for the pursuit or extension of personal disputes

Be aware:

Views expressed on the comments board are left at users’ discretion and are in no way views held or supported by Civil Society Media
Comments left by others may not be accurate, do not rely on them as fact
You may be misunderstood - sarcasm and humour can easily be taken out of context, try to be clear

Please:

Enjoy the opportunity to express your opinion and respect the right of others to express theirs
Confine your remarks to issues rather than personalities

Together we can keep our community a polite, respectful and intelligent platform for discussion.