From the Guardian this morning:
It is disappointing for us as campaigners to see the short-term income needs of large charities taking precedence over our work to build a better society (Report, 13 April). A decent society should not have to depend on the largesse of the super-rich for its public services, cultural life or anti-poverty drive. Far from building accountability and democracy, philanthropy will only ever allow the funding of "pet projects".
Tax exemptions for the super-rich have helped foster inequality. The removal of such exemptions must form a small part of a wider quest for tax justice which would allow governments everywhere to provide public and cultural goods accountable to their societies. It is time for the sort of very large charities who will be effected by the proposed tax exemption measures to stand up and be counted: the changes you purport to want cannot come about through your endless expansion, but by economic justice. Will you support justice over charity, public over private, democracy or dependency?
Nick DeardenJubilee Debt Campaign
John ChristensenTax Justice Network
I agree, entirely.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
I couldn’t have put it better.
In London the Evening Standard has a “dispossessed” campaign which seems to be a photo opportunity for certain people’s pet projects. It is ironic that the same newspaper was campaigning vigorously to remove the 50p tax rate as well as fervently championing neoliberal economic policies.
If you champion a political philosophy that fosters inequality do not be surprised by the results.
Hole in one!
It seems appropriate to quote Labour’s finest leader, Attlee, on this subject. He put this so well and so succinctly:
“Charity is a cold grey loveless thing. If a rich man wants to help the poor, he should pay his taxes gladly, not dole out money at a whim.”
It all depends on who spends it better does it not? As Charities employ a lot of voluntary workers they should have a cheaper cost base than Government, and also have better expertise in their own areas. Despite their imperfections, including a woefullly inadeqaute
Charities Commission, I am surprised at your attack on this area.
“philanthropy will only ever allow the funding of “pet projects”.”
And government never spends money on “pet projects”?!?!?!?!?!?!
There is democratic control of that