Don't believe in charities, the tax-exempt status for them, or their high-priced help

76 posts / 0 new
Last post
6079_Smith_W

I'm just going by North Report's line of reasoning here - that charities are full of waste and should have their tax deductable status cut, and that a fairer tax system will automatically result in a more caring society (the assumption being that care is currently lacking).

I agree it should not be a choice between the two; I'm not the one who made that proposal.

But as I said, it is not going to be done in a single stroke.

 

Brachina

 My problem with Charities is thier undemocractic. It gives the rich huge power over how tax dollar's end up being spent vs. Everyone one elae.

 

 It comes down to the Mazlo Hierachy of needs. Everything on the bottom tier of the Pyridmind should be covered by Gov and non tax.decuctible charities can work on the other tiers, with some governmetn help.

 Tax decuctions for the rich sicken me.

 

6079_Smith_W

@ Brachina

How do you figure that? This has nothing to do with setting the federal budget.

As for charities, how "democratic" they are depends on the organization.

For that matter, the line between charity and government isn't always that clear, especially when one makes a donation to a hospital foundation, university or other organization.

 

 

NorthReport

This is preaching to the converted here, as most, if not all, who post here contribute to helping others, whether or not you receive tax-exemptions.  

Just stands to reason though, that by allowing tax exemptions to charities' donors, and by not additionally thoroughly monitoring and controlling their administrative costs, it is an invitation for major exploitation, which obviously occurs on a daily basis throughout Canada.

The biggest problem created by these charities is that it lets, are you fucking evening listening James Moore, you miserable creep, all our governments off the hook to look after, and protect, those less fortunate in our society.

Many CEOs of charities draw unconsciounable wages and benefits. to say nothing of the glorification of rich people with their tax benefit donations to hospitals, etc who in turn name their new additions after them. These rich folks are  not paying their fair share of taxes and the system is staked in their favour to have all the money, the power and glory as well.

We should be redistributing wealth bigtime in Canada - why just because you are someone's brat do you get to inherit the earth, eh! 

Jack Layton was correct - both in that the Martin Liberal government policies did lead to people dying frozen in our streets of Canada in the Winters, and there should be an across the board, a no exemptions whatsoever, 10% inheritance tax implemented immediately. We would eliminate poverty, rebuild our middle class, and have a much more caring and fair society in Canada. Are you even listening Governor General David Johnson, AKA Stephen Harper. Too bad Layton didn't stick to his guns with both these issues. Oh well, he at least tried, and his heart was in the right place.

For example, and I contributed to them btw, how much of the money raised by, or in the name of, the Canadian Red Cross for the recent Philippine Typhoon Relief Fund, actually go to the needy in the Philippines. Curios minds would like to know, and why aren't our mostly useless mainstream press media questioning this and getting out the facts as well!!!

 

6079_Smith_W

North Report,

There should be tax reform whether there is an adequate social safety net or not.

And charity budgets should be open to the public regardless of whether people give out of good will or to put themselves into a lower tax bracket.In short, while some of these issues are interrelated, there is no direct connection between them.

And whether it is high fundraising costs or administrative costs, I'm not sure it is quite so easy to prevent donation for those reasons. But I think if you look you'll find those things have been reported on, and the information is there for those who want to see. Fact is though, they aren't always so black and white either. If we were talking about the public service would we also be talking about how much people are being paid to deliver services? Believe it or not, organizations cost money to run, and services cost money to deliver.

Fact is, although I take note of how efficient a charity is, I pay more attention to its actions and politics.

And personally, I don't have a problem with donations being tax deductable. If anything, I wish more organizations (like arts organizations, or Rabble) could qualify. I like the idea that I can direct my money toward causes I I support - and that in at least some cases it is tax deductable; Considering how much support some of them are likely to get from government, I'd say you might want to think again about that.

And if I wanted to pick a first target to go after it wouldn't be charities, it would be political donations.

 

 

Doug Woodard

NorthReport, please clarify. Do you want charities to be abolished right now, while Harper and his provincial colleagues are in charge, or after the Socialist Utopia is established and everyone receives according to his or her need? At some intermediate point? As it stands, I haven't the faintest idea what you want.

Sean in Ottawa

Charity suggests social justice is optional and not a right and obligation of a society to take care of its people in an organized and fair way. Charity is fine but rely on it for nothing. A social safety net is a requirement for a civilized society and that's not optional.

Unionist

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Charity suggests social justice is optional and not a right and obligation of a society to take care of its people in an organized and fair way. Charity is fine but rely on it for nothing. A social safety net is a requirement for a civilized society and that's not optional.

That, really, is the point.

 

DaveW

NorthReport wrote:

... , and I contributed to them btw, how much of the money raised by, or in the name of, the Canadian Red Cross for the recent Philippine Typhoon Relief Fund, actually go to the needy in the Philippines. Curios minds would like to know, and why aren't our mostly useless mainstream press media questioning this and getting out the facts as well!!!

well, the Red Cross does a very good job of steering money directly to those in need, and they highlight this percentage constantly; it would be fatal to do otherwise ;

but be careful feeding cynical trolls who say all charity = No good.

 the fact remains you have to have office staff and admin support for any big operation, it is not free to run big offices...

Googled charity and effectiveness, but could not find the equivalent of this for Canada, concluding 90.7% of US Red Cross donations go to disaster in question:

http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=3277#...

 

And as to the top of the thread proposal by NorthReport to abolish all charities in Canada, again a very bad idea. His faith in all-benevolent Governments is sort of touching, though. Surprised

 

 

Otavano

NorthReport wrote:

Charities are just another of the many, many ways the rich avoid paying their fair share of taxes.

It is up to our elected governments to redistribute the wealth, and our government health agencies to decide where monies show should go for health-related research. 

All charities need to be abolished in Canada

 

I disagree. I've been giving regularly since September to a fund for the translation of literature into Algonquin, and am hoping to have a chance to also contribute to a fund to publish literature in or to learn Algonquin.

Considering that the Constitution makes it difficult to redirect funding from English and French to Algonquin (assuming the government even had the will to do so considering that all of the major parties support official bilingualism), the Government is therefore not the best source of funding for the publication of resources in Algonquin until the Constitution is changed, voluntary contributions being a better option, unless you can propose a better alternative?

Otavano

And just to clarify, I'm hardly wealthy.

Otavano

I'd actually even argue that part of the reason for charities is that some of us don't trust the government with our money. I'd rather a 'charity-industrial complex' over a colonialist 'military industrial complex' or even just an 'assimilation-industrial complex' as is the case with our current Constitution and laws.

 

It's just a shame that the Algonquin Nation is facing so much red tape in trying to incorporate. We don't need to add even more red tape for it. If charities were banned, we'd essentially be eliminating counterbalances to Canadian assimilationism.

Otavano

Unionist wrote:

Explain why any contributions to anything should be tax-deductible. I never understood that. It's a direct social subsidy to the gift. It means that society supports that gift and considers it worthy. When did I get to vote on that?

 

So let me get this straight. According to François Vaillancourt in a study done in 2012, I have to pay about 85 dollars a year in taxes to subsidize English and French, but I should get no tax refund at all for any contribution to the revitalization of the Algonquin language?

My contributions so far have been tax-deductible, and if the Algonquin Nation eventually incorporates as a registered charity, then my contributions to them would be too. Why is it OK to force me to subsidize the poor English and French but not OK to allow me to claim on my contributions to the Algonquin language? Why the double standard?

NorthReport

This is just sickening.

Glitter Girl Nancy Tsai charged with defrauding 92-year-old after trust account used to buy $2.2M apartment

Many a picture of the photogenic Nancy Tsai has been taken and often they have made it into newspapers and books, focusing, at first, on the glamorous woman’s socialite status as a wife to the rich and powerful, and secondly on her philanthropy, such as founding the Canadian Breast Cancer Foundation and championing the arts.

Her most recent portrait, however, is making her biggest splash and, in the ineluctable irony of our celebrity-obsessed world, is the one she would least like to have been taken: a distinctly non-air-brushed mug shot by the Palm Beach Police.

Palm Beach County Sheriff's DepartmentPalm Beach County Sheriff's DepartmentNancy Tsai faces charges that she took advantage of a 92-year-old woman muddled by Alzheimers, conning her into spending $2.35 million on a penthouse and a Bentley, according to arrest records.

Her alleged crime: exploitation of a wealthy, 92-year-old woman with Alzheimer’s disease and grand theft after spending large amounts of money from the woman’s trust account she oversaw.

Ms. Tsai made a name for herself in the 1980s as Nancy Paul, one of the so-called Glitter Girls, a group of high-society Toronto women married to extremely wealthy men who threw lavish charity balls and fundraisers.

 

http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/04/28/glitter-girl-nancy-tsai-charged-...

quizzical

i guess every npo is being condemned here what a load of crap

NorthReport

Why is any charity paying gigantic wages to their executive directors and the like?

It's a flippin' charity, isn't it!

Charities are one of the biggest cons perpetuated on society, and allows the rich to avoid paying their fair share of taxes. 

 

 

 

NorthReport

Would you care to be a little more specific?

quizzical wrote:

i guess every npo is being condemned here what a load of crap

quizzical

here in our small and no industry community, if not for our community npo's, things would be really bad, and not one of them has a paid CEO or Ex Dir.

NorthReport

There are always exceptions, but overall 99% of charities do a huge amount more harm than good. but they do make people feel good so I suppose that counts for something.

But this story is the kind of thing I am talking about which is incredibly sad.

Palm Beach senior in Toronto ‘Glitter Girl’ exploitation case dies

Florida police say Helga Marston's death "probably" won't derail their case against Nancy Tsai, the once-prominent Toronto socialite.

http://www.thestar.com/news/crime/2014/04/30/palm_beach_senior_in_toront...

quote=quizzical]

here in our small and no industry community, if not for our community npo's, things would be really bad, and not one of them has a paid CEO or Ex Dir.

quizzical

you got some facts to back up your personal beliefs on the 99%?

NorthReport

Another one!

Politics? Travel expenses? In Quebec, a charity in crisis

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/in-quebec-a-charity-in-crisi...

ygtbk
Pogo Pogo's picture

I am a big believer in government being the best place for providing support. But I recognize that others think different and the a lot of charities do fine work, often working with government and allowing government designed programs to achieve more. So why shouldn't heads of charities receive pay equivalent to what other jobs are paying.

surfdoc surfdoc's picture

A charity that I have supported both financially, and with many volunteer hours in the past was Rotary.

 

Quote:
All charities need to be abolished in Canada

 

Thankfully, Rotary has received matching contributions from the Federal Government towards Polio Eradication. Rotary has been leading the charge on Polio eradication for over 20 years. I personally believe we will see the last case of Polio within the next 5 years. While the vaccinations occur overseas, Rotary is active in our backyards. How would abolishing charities affect international NGOs?

 

Quote:
Nor do I think religious organizations should be eligible for any kind of tax breaks

 

No debate there.

quizzical

what our municipal government did here, to level the playing field with churches, is take away the property taxes on those  npo's who own property and buildings. they couldn't get taxes from churches and decided to make all things equal.

the  npo's in the community are the only ones who give everything back to the community, while the "churches" take and give nothing much to the community.

we've a whack load of "evangelical" churches here. they couldn't get along together so successive new churches were formed as they fought over power and control. now the main one fundraises to give money to some charity in Zimbabwe.

 

Pages