Polly\’s very strange argument

The arts are very profitable so we should subsidise them.

Eh?

This is far worse:

Instead of investment, the government looks to philanthropy. Last week Vivien Duffield gave an admirable £8.2m to her chosen arts venues. As she did so, she commanded another 20%, or £2m, in tax relief. Charity is a fine thing, but the state – or in this case the Arts Council – is a more trustworthy distributor of taxpayers\’ money than the whims of wealthy donors. The budget offered a further bonus of inheritance tax relief to anyone leaving 10% to charity in their will: Duffield\’s pet arts schemes command our cash too; hardly a democratic distribution.

I\’m pretty sure she\’s got tax law wrong here anyway: the money comes from a charitable foundation and so was never subject to tax in the first place. Thus no Gift Aid is payable (please, as ever, correct me if I\’m wrong).

But what\’s truly appalling is the implicit argument there: that the State spends money better than people do themselves.

Gift Aid isn\’t \”government money\” which then follows the desires of donors. It\’s an admission that we don\’t want to tax people who give away their money to charities. So, when people do give money to charity we put into the pot the tax they\’ve already paid on that dosh.

But Polly is equating this with taxes being raised upon us all being spent upon the desires of those rich folks: which just ain\’t true.

Worse, she\’s then going on to say that having bureaucrats allocate the money is better than people doing it for themselves. Really, a rather foul view of human freedom.

And having had a look, yes, given that the donations come from the Clore Duffield Foundation I\’m near certain that there would be no gift aid added to them. Because there\’s been no tax paid there will be no tax repaid, will there?

Not unless charity law is even more screwed up than even I think it is……

7 comments on “Polly\’s very strange argument

  1. It’s funny how The King’s Speech is being rolled out as a great example of the state spending money, when the largest backer was the Aegis Film Fund, with the UK Film Council backing just over 10% of the budget.

  2. Since she works for the tox-dadger, she’s probably contractually obliged to write error-strewn rubbish.

    By the by, today’s Telegraph says that when she’s doing rich girl stuff – in this case, applying for planning pemission to enhance her “palatial” pile (the north London one, they say, as distinct from the Tuscan one) – she styles herself “Mary Jenkins”.

  3. Worse than what La Toynbee says: Duffield’s foundation will have been capitalised with the fortune she inherited from her father Charles Clore, so no chance of claiming any gift aid on the contribution (£100m or so), but the inheritance was subject to UK death duties.

    Old man Clore (or his executors) claimed he was domiciled in Monte Carlo, but this was challenged by the Revenue and they won. No credit given for the tax paid when the capital was put into the foundation.

  4. This is compelling evidence in support of a hypothesis that I have long held.
    Toynbee is a fiction, the Grauniad’s version of Peter Simple in the Daily Bellylaugh of years passed

  5. It’s certainly a compelling notion, View. I think she actually is a Simple character. Mrs Dutt-Pauker, perhaps.

    I too, am going to have a view from the Solent for the next fortnight. What’s the weather like?

  6. Regrettably, having encountered the woman on two separate occasions 20 years apart, I am sad to report that although Polly Toynbee is indeed a fictional character, the author is unfortunately that very same Polly Toynbee.

    More encouragingly, unlike port, she does not age well.

Leave a Reply

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

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>