Allergy to austerity

ruggedtoast

pinkteapot wrote: »

Except people didn't turn down the cheap mortgages, 0% credit cards, cheap bank loans...

The government started the 'blame the bankers' frenzy to divert attention away from themselves and it worked spectacularly.

I'm not saying the city is faultless; not by a long way. But people bought the products they were offering.

Yes, people bought the products and on the whole people are paying them back.

The financial crisis wasnt caused by defaults, it was caused by a bunch of greedy financiers who couldnt do the basic sums that every household does each month; and extended their companies beyond their means.

They loaned money they didn't have, invested in stupid shonky investments a 12 year old could have figured out were risky, and would have gone spectacularly bankrupt if they hadnt been bailed out by the taxpayer.

In return for that we were told the banks would lend again, money would flow and it would all be better the next time around.

Well the banks aren't lending and the money isn't flowing. The only thing that is flowing is the champagne they buy with the bonuses from our money.

Therefore they can take the austerity they caused and stuff it until they start sharing some of the pain themselves imo.

Wookster

lostinrates wrote: »

I have been waiting for this to be discussed, because i KNOW of situations where charitable giving is used as spectacular tax dodges, including donations off sure, to places like Cayman, which ultimately iresult in exactly the 'donors' non taxable income. Some relate to religion and education too, but i cannot really expand more without saying too much.

This exactly proves the point, and so do the many folks who've come on TV & Radio saying they will donate less. Why do these people not get the vitriol they deserve?

pinkteapot wrote: »

The government started the 'blame the bankers' frenzy to divert attention away from themselves and it worked spectacularly.

The government aren't blaming bankers, Labour is.

pinkteapot

Wookster wrote: »

The government aren't blaming bankers, Labour is.

Sorry yes; absolutely. One of many reasons Labour can disappear back down whatever hole they crawled out of.

michaels

Some interesting comments re the charity situation. Surely the abuses could be managed rather than throwing the baby out with the bathwater tho. How about only allowing big deductions of the size that is causing concern for donations to charities on a certain register?

I dislike that school fees are 'charitable' when they are basically purchasing an eduction for their own children. I can see an argument that you should be able to reclaim the cost of a state education for the child but I can not see how they are 'charities' in any way that the concept of charity is generally understood.

FTBFun

Unfortunately that it appears the Government, like all Governments regardless of rosette colour, are going for a sledgehammer approach to charities rather than giving the Charity Commission and HMRC the ability to weed out false claims whilst the vast majority of gifts are wholly legitimate. I find it pretty depressing quite frankly.

FTBFun

On a side note, chartered accountants and tax advisers (i'm one of the latter) are required to due diligence of which confirming whether gift aid is being made to a UK registered charity is part.

As long as that's being done that's fine - but if the Charity Commission is registering dodgy charities that's where the problem lies.

princeofpounds

Some interesting comments re the charity situation. Surely the abuses could be managed rather than throwing the baby out with the bathwater tho. How about only allowing big deductions of the size that is causing concern for donations to charities on a certain register?

I dislike that school fees are 'charitable' when they are basically purchasing an eduction for their own children. I can see an argument that you should be able to reclaim the cost of a state education for the child but I can not see how they are 'charities' in any way that the concept of charity is generally understood.

rather than giving the Charity Commission and HMRC the ability to weed out false claims whilst the vast majority of gifts are wholly legitimate.

And who exactly is going to pay for this vast bureaucracy to check all the charity donations? There is already a register of charities and the charity commission is supposed to police it.

Anyone who spends a little time looking into the Charity Commission will realise that there is very limited oversight of exactly what goes on in those charities.

I think it was only a couple of months back I was watching an investigation on TV of a dodgy letting agent that had actually set itself up as a charity to 'house the vulnerable' when in fact all it was doing was shovelling poor people into dodgy accomodation and not paying any tax on the business.

macaque_2

pineapple wrote: »

Surely all this is doing is penalising charities at a time when many are struggling through council cutbacks etc. The national charity which I used to work for has had to close offices and lay off staff and there must be many others which are also struggling.

One of the reasons why the charity issue has been so prominent is in part due to the power of charities who use donor's money for political lobbying.

Tax benefits for charity donations should be scrapped altogether and if people want to give to charity, they should do so out of taxed income.

Tax is levied to fund schools, hospitals, ambulences etc. Why should people evade tax (which supports essential services) by giving wads of cash to a Donkey sanctury?

I am very suspicious of many charities, especially the big ones. In places like Africa, I think they often do more harm than good by creating chronic dependency.

nearlynew

macaque wrote: »

One of the reasons why the charity issue has been so prominent is in part due to the power of charities who use donor's money for political lobbying.

Tax benefits for charity donations should be scrapped altogether and if people want to give to charity, they should do so out of taxed income.

Tax is levied to fund schools, hospitals, ambulences etc. Why should people evade tax (which supports essential services) by giving wads of cash to a Donkey sanctury?

I am very suspicious of many charities, especially the big ones. In places like Africa, I think they often do more harm than good by creating chronic dependency.

Totally agree.

The more money a charity receives, the more lobbyists they employ in order to receive yet more money. And so it goes on.

Remember, the LAST thing a charity wants is to meet their aim and for their cause to have a happy outcome. They would be out of a a job.

Generali

My understanding is that part of the justification of the tax thing is that certain people were routing money to overseas 'charities' that were in reality no such thing.

To be fair, I have given a fair whack to charity in my time and so have a lot of City mates and I've never met one that does it for the tax break.