Polly on Charity

Oh dear, oh dear.

She measures the effectiveness of chairty efforts by how much money is donated. Not by the results. And not even by the time donated by volunteers. Only by how much cash gets handed over.

Then there\’s this:

Looking at those priorities, it\’s worth remembering that every time someone gives to charity, the taxpayer is obliged to donate too. When, for instance, someone gives to the tiny Odinist Fellowship (which seems to take five times more money than it spends on Odin worship), we taxpayers put in up to another 28%, willy-nilly.

Err, no. The donor has already paid tax on those funds. When donated, the tax already paid is returned to the charity. That\’s not a contribution from taxpayers, that\’s a return of tax already paid.

9 comments on “Polly on Charity

  1. “She measures the effectiveness of chairty efforts by how much money is donated. Not by the results. And not even by the time donated by volunteers. Only by how much cash gets handed over.”

    Socialists always do know the cost of everything, and the value of nothing.

  2. Perhaps the real point of significance is the insanely, monstrously, awful big idea the Tories have of, so far as I can tell anyway, handing over some significant chunk of government funded welfare provision to the ghastly charities and “third sector”, a typical worst of both worlds Tory solution in which massive amounts of rent gets extracted from the public and put in the hands of social reformers, who are probably the most dangerous class of people who have ever existed in all of human history and who are the ones primarily responsible for the giant state which now bears down upon us all.

    What we really need to do is withdraw all government funding from the “third sector”, remove their tax exemptions and recognise they are traders, just like businesses and the employed; except they trade on human suffering. Bastards.

  3. Ah, but you’re misunderestimating the Polly mindset. The required level of spending on schools ‘n’ hospitals is a given, an absolute, so any reduction in government income (through for example a tax rebate) necessitates increased taxes.

    Tax rebates cause tax increases. Similarly, tax avoidance by companies is money “taken” from ordinary taxpayers. It’s perfectly logical, as long as you don’t regard any government expenditure as being optional.

  4. Tax rebates cause tax increases. Similarly, tax avoidance by companies is money “taken” from ordinary taxpayers. It’s perfectly logical, as long as you don’t regard any government expenditure as being optional.

    —-

    Well yes, and also the assumption by Polly that the top marginal rate, call it 50%, is the “real” marginal rate that taxpayers should be paying – if the taxpayer has deductions for charitable donations or business expenses, the government is still somehow morally entitled to the money even if it isn’t legally allowed to take it.

  5. You’re right, but remember that in Pollyworld all money belongs to the State, so what’s yours is really theirs anyway.

    Ergo, if you’re allowed to keep a bit of yours and give it to someone else instead of to Leviathan, then in fact Leviathan has made that donation.

    So in her frame of reference she is correct, too.

  6. “The Charities Aid Foundation warns that in the last recession giving dropped by 64% – while demand rose by 90%”

    Anyone else surprised by the idea that charitable demand nearly doubles in a recession? Obviously, certain religious charities and UK charities working with poverty would see an increase in demand. But cancer research, the RNLI, the RSPCA, donkey sanctuaries and foreign aid would be unaffected.

  7. What Ian B and mark say above.

    Don’t forget that it is the government that decides who is a charity and who isn’t, so that’s step 1; then once a charity is getting the tax refunds, it is only a small step 2 to funding them directly, see Work Foundation, New Economics Foundation, Alcohol Concern etc ad infinitum.

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.