"necessary humanitarian services"

Charities will collect it because it is voluntary, and they'll make a passionate argument for it to convince people to assist. Some will come from low earners, some from high earners, some from businesses giving, much from gifts in wills.   If it was taxed, it would be forced paying, and people would simply vote for a different political party as soon as they have the chance.  Do it the other way, stop taxing me, and I'll give the difference where I think it's needed.

Society has a need for government and charity, as they provide different things, abolishing either couldn't work. The difficulty comes in where the lines are blurred. 

Abolish charitable status. (Cut the charities free to do as they please but tax their incomes and make them as responsible for their advertising/fundraising claims as any other business). Get the State to properly fund all the necessary humanitarian services from tax payer's money.

If one says "Well, taxes would have to be raised so much... people don't have that money", the answer surely is "Well how were the charities going to collect it in the first place then?" - it's all a matter of how equitably the tax schedule is designed. Why should people with low incomes be guilted into making voluntary contributions to good causes when high earners have the intelligence not to?

First World Country my eye!

The article could go further by discussing the issues relating to European and other more 'bureaucratic' forms of statutory funding and the effect this can have on the charity's effectiveness...

The problem arises with things like health charities.  Local authorities have to provide care for people with certain conditions, but often charities end up being paid to provide the service.  If the charities didn't provide it though, then the 'care' provided by the government would in many cases be, frankly, unsuitable.  (Eg, a 30 year old with MS in an old people's home or mental institution).  The extra is that people get the care they need, rather than something called care.

While many charities gain a sizeable income from this, it is often less than the amount it costs them, so while it looks like they're getting lots of money from the government to do the government's work, they're actually subsidising the government.

I don't know the solution to this, but I do know that the individuals whose lives are affected deserve real care.

I think this article raises a lot of excellent points - and deserves significantly more attention and than it initially got (when published in a different form) a few months ago.

Charities that do the government's work simply cannot call themselves 'charities' in any true sense. If the word is to have any meaning, charities must provide a service which is in addition to what the state provides. 

I repeat: charities do things that are charitable - that are funded through the goodwill of donors  - and the government provides services which are paid for through compulsory taxes. These are not compatible philosophies.

It's in both the government's and 'charities'' interest to keep quiet about this issue.  The charities concerned benefit handsomely from government income, and the government gets services provided at a favourable price.

This is simply unfair, and makes a mockery of what 'charity' actually means.