Do the rich get richer by donating to charity?

TruckerT

Neither the government, nor the meedja, nor the charities are bothering to explain the difference between a tax 'relief', or a tax 'allowance', and a tax 'refund' or a tax 'rebate'

Rich people do not get richer by donating to charity

It is the charities which benefit from the tax break, not the donors

Rich people, effectively, have the freedom to choose how to spend the money which they owe in tax. But the bottom line is that they choose between giving to charity (or investing in any other government-structured tax-relief scheme) and handing over their money to HMRC - they either pay about half of their money in tax, or they pay twice the amount to the charity of their choice - the net cost to the donor is the same either way

Capping tax relief on charitable donations is just another way to reduce the amount spent in the Big Society, and increase the government's tax-take, so that they might claim success in reducing the Big Deficit, which was created by their cronies in Big Banking, and who continue to line their Big Pockets with very Big Profits

TruckerT

LydiaJ

Further details of the problem and the campaign against it are here:

http://giveitbackgeorge.org/whats-the-problem/

CLAPTON

most charities are frauds with very highly paid executives and very little money actually going to 'charity'

e.g oxfam, greenpeace are now massive highly paid lobbying organisations


and of course Laim Fox's 'charity' was closed down

zagfles

Do people really think individuals can't benefit from charitable "donations" which qualify for tax relief?

Looking through my gift aids for the past year, I have English Heritage membership, days out at castles, zoos, the National Space Centre, my daughter's guides subs... these were things we did for our own benefit yet we can claim tax relief on them. All within the rules.

On a bigger scale, some people have managed to get their private school fees paid as a "charitable donation", and there are various social organisations which qualify as charities which enable people to get tax relief on some of their social life.

A £50k cap on donations is more than reasonable.

VfM4meplse

Already being discussed on the DT forum

TruckerT

zagfles wrote: »

Do people really think individuals can't benefit from charitable "donations" which qualify for tax relief?

Looking through my gift aids for the past year, I have English Heritage membership, days out at castles, zoos, the National Space Centre, my daughter's guides subs... these were things we did for our own benefit yet we can claim tax relief on them. All within the rules.

On a bigger scale, some people have managed to get their private school fees paid as a "charitable donation", and there are various social organisations which qualify as charities which enable people to get tax relief on some of their social life.

A £50k cap on donations is more than reasonable.

Re your 2nd paragraph - all those events cost you money, rite? The tax break operates in favour of the recipients of your money - the tax relief which you may or may not have claimed will not reduce the cost to yourself, it will only benefit the organisations to which you choose to give money

There is a big misunderstanding about who benefits from tax relief on government sponsored schemes

Re your 3rd paragraph - it is too vague to answer

TruckerT

TruckerT

CLAPTON wrote: »

most charities are frauds

if that is true, then why does anybody continue to patronise them, with or without a tax break? Why have they not been exposed on MSE?

TruckerT

CLAPTON

TruckerT wrote: »

if that is true, then why does anybody continue to patronise them, with or without a tax break? Why have they not been exposed on MSE?

TruckerT

do your own research


look at all those PAID people who try to persuade you to sign up for DD on the high street

look at the aftermath of the major disasters and see how much money actually goes to the poor

you tell me what do greenpeace ACTUALLY do?

look at all the house 'charities' ; look at their websites and try to find out what the incomes of the top people are e.g. look at Hyde House Trust (a major housing charity in the SE ) and try to find their accounts


how many people do Oxfam employ

come to your own conclusion

zagfles

TruckerT wrote: »

Re your 2nd paragraph - all those events cost you money, rite? The tax break operates in favour of the recipients of your money - the tax relief which you may or may not have claimed will not reduce the cost to yourself, it will only benefit the organisations to which you choose to give money

Err, yes they do reduce the cost to anyone who pays tax at 40% or 50%, they can claim higher rate tax relief on their tax return. The organisation just gets the basic rate relief. Anyone affected by the £50k cap will be paying at least 40% tax, and so will get a 25% rebate on the net cost direct to them from the taxman.

There is a big misunderstanding about who benefits from tax relief on government sponsored schemes

Which you illustrate well

TruckerT

zagfles wrote: »

Err, yes they do reduce the cost to anyone who pays tax at 40% or 50%, they can claim higher rate tax relief on their tax return. The organisation just gets the basic rate relief. Anyone affected by the £50k cap will be paying at least 40% tax, and so will get a 25% rebate on the net cost direct to them from the taxman.


Which you illustrate well

Let us suppose that the family admission to a Big Castle is £45

What will you pay?

£45, rite?

If you fill in a form, then the Big Castle may be able to claim an extra £9 or so

This has nothing whatsoever to do with multi-millionaires and £50,000 caps etc

TruckerT

zagfles

TruckerT wrote: »

Let us suppose that the family admission to a Big Castle is £45

What will you pay?

£45, rite?

Up front - then I get a £11.25 rebate on my tax return. Direct subsidy to me from the taxman.

If you fill in a form, then the Big Castle may be able to claim an extra £9 or so

£11.25 to be pedantic

This has nothing whatsoever to do with multi-millionaires and £50,000 caps etc

TruckerT

It illustrates that it is perfectly possible to get a tax rebate from a "contribution" the donor personally benefits from. I've only done it for small scale things like days out, but it's perfectly possible to do it on a larger scale. That's what the govt are trying to clamp down on.

Even if the donor doesn't personally benefit, why should anyone have the right to say eg some arts charity is more deserving than the NHS?