The Government have come under fire for seeking to reduce tax allowances for donations to charity.
Having run two charities and as someone who opposes this outrageous and damaging Government you might expect me join the baying crowd. But I’m not so sure. Firstly we have the millionaire philanthropists complaining that this will make them donate less. So what they are saying is that they don’t really make donations out of “a love of humanity” (the meaning of philanthropy) but to reduce their tax bill. The vast majority donors don’t know about tax reliefs or indeed claim them.
The second issue which concerns me is that ‘charity’ is seen as a good thing, however not all charities are equal. Yes they include many fantastic organisations but also Eton College and other private schools. Ironically my donating to Eton you can reduce the amount you pay for state schools, charitable?
Charities have been used to channel funds to political parties and some have been specifically set up to hide money from the taxman (Private Eye is good enough a source for me). The Charity Commission which oversees the sector has not been untouched by the cuts.
Philanthropy has great traditions and supports some great work but should it really be a mechanism for avoiding the taxes which pay for health, education and other social services/
A background report on charitable giving can be found here
I pretty much agree with you. One example that did annoy me was the fact that the NHS was so backward with transgender surgery but instead of taking ownership of that issue Stephen Fry just ducked everything and made a donation to someone’s private healthcare surgery fund.
I’m neutral on NHS and private healthcare, and it’s up to a rich fat gay man what he does with his money but I feel a serious opportunity to drive positive change was dropped by everyone. If anything it just enables the already rich (through tax breaks for donating and using the private healthcare escape chute when available) to get further ahead.
I can’t remember the exact figures but the opportunity cost of exclusive transgender healthcare runs into thousands per person yearly which obviously accumulates to a huge sum over someone’s lifetime, yet, tens of thousands yearly will be thrown at keeping someone in jail. The same could be said, I’m sure, of your education example.
Assuming money is just a lubricant for power and affiliation what’s the real question here? You’ve commented that “the markets” are just a cover for rich bankers. Isn’t transgender healthcare or your own education example the same thing? If Thatcher was correct in saying “there is no such thing as society” when will the powerful (who she despaired of) take individual and personal responsibility for their actions?
Janet Daley commented on this recently and there’s my earlier comments on your blog where I rehabilitated Thatcher which say a similar thing. The strong implication is that the majority of self-described and upcoming Thatcherites are anything but. The key issue is exclusively masculinised power buying lackeys with favours versus more feminised power which is often better at teaching and nurturing people on lower rungs of power.