A Charitable Thought

The Conservative government of England (oops, the UK) are busy shooting themselves in the foot these budget days. The msot recent debacle being the suggestion that charitable donations be capped. This being in order to reduce the amount the very rich can hide from the taxman and in context of the widely discussed factoid that some billionaires only pay 10% taxes, compared to nearer 40% for the great unwashed. All moral indignation and spluttering into one's tea aside, the issue merits some thought.

Firstly, 10% of what? The initial sum of a few million pounds? Or what is left after all the deductions have been vanished?

Secondly, what is wrong with the very rich giving money to fund vital research into cancer, heart disease, mental health, or any number of worthy endeavours? What about art galleries, museums, theatres, schools (but not those elitist private ones like what I went to)? Other cultural items as opera and, whisper it, ballet companies?

Thirdly, are there not other evasions which can be addressed first? Maybe also those bogus cahrities, or charitable trusts where whole tribes of the donor's offspring and retainers are paid for dubious effort.

But, why is it only the rich who can do this? Why not anybody - after all, unlike Canada, any money I donate to a worthy cause is gone and is gone after I pay tax. The charity can claim the tax back, which is not unreasonable, but it is lost to me, the donor.

In a sense, the government want to have their cake and to be able to eat it too (and probably eat it many times over, but that is just gross, even for a politician). The research funding, the cultural philanthropy, the oiling of societies wheels are all very useful to government because it means that they are not responsible for variuos quasi-elitist (I only add the modifier because I think these things should not be elitist) activities and which might be dragged out by an opportunist opposition to upset the voter base.

However, and here is the difficult part, there should be nothing wrong with the government taking that money which would normally be donated, and using it itself to fund the research and the cultural stuff? In principle, there is nothing wrong with that idea except there is nobody on this earth who would trust the politicians to spend the money wisely. They would fritter it away on useless activites such as wars, prisons, and getting themselves re-elected.

So, my conclusion is (not what I thought it might be when I set out on this journey) to leave the principle well alone. Allow the rich to donate as much stuff as they want to worthy causes, to get their names in lights, and to schmooze with beautiful and very intelligent people. Clamp down on the less allutrusitic deals (shady charities) and the spurious evasions. Allow the rest of us the same 'rewards' for donating to noble efforts, and, who knows, we might have a better society in the end.