A reader's letter by a quangocrat in today's FT signs off with this:
If the current government has decided that it wants to lessen this [subsidy], it will result in a massive loss of funding for charities, at a time when many of them are already struggling to survive. Fashions in philanthropy may change, but people’s desire to give to causes they believe in will never go away and the government must continue to support this.
John Low, Chief Executive, Charities Aid Foundation*
Twat.
You might as well say "people's desire to have sex will never go away and the government must continue to support this" or "people's desire to play golf/collect stamps/race pigeons will never go away and the government must continue to support this". If the desire isn't going to go away, by definition, there is no need for the taxpayer to subsidise it.
* The CAF appears to be a glorified book-keeping service/clearing house for charitable donations which are forwarded on to the actual intended charities. Note 6 on page 43 of their 2011 accounts makes for interesting reading.
The number of staff whose total emoluments (salary plus benefits excluding pensions contributions exceeded £60,000 during the year is as follows:
...
£100,001 - £110,000 - 1
£110,001 - £120,000 - 1
£120,001 - £130,000 - 2
£140,001 - £150,000 - 1
It’ll be people like you and me
13 minutes ago
29 comments:
People's desire to be well-paid charity executives will never go away...
... and the government must continue to support this.
>"people's desire to have sex will never go away and the government must continue to support this"
Yet you continue to think "Child Benefit" is a good idea.
SB, FFS, child benefit is the simplest way of evening out the "mothers-vs-everybody else pay gap". I've explained this to you as many times as you've left this comment, and to save time in future I'm just going to delete your comments to this effect.
Yacht benefit is the best way to even out the pay gap between those who spend time on a Yacht and everyone else.
It's a silly idea, and your justification is nano coated special pleading.
We might as well also say "People's desire to dictate their beliefs and lifestyles will never go away, therefore government should support it." Actually, that is happening...
Self serving smug gittery of the first order. Calling the tosser a 'twat' is being far too polite.
SB, you're so bo-o-oring sometimes!
It's not special f- pleading as I am not a 'mother', not by any stretch. It is levelling the playing field a teeny tiny bit on behalf of women who have children (they are still at a huge financial disavantage), with none of the stupid distortions of all this unenforceable eqal-pay stuff which only helps big business f- over small business.
J, good point. That's part of the reason people go into politics, for the fun of banning stuff.
L, how about "thief"?
Isn't the whole child benefit argument rather moot when there's a CI?
Not really. Citizens Dividend would go to full citizens who can vote 18+.
>It is levelling the playing field
It's naked special pleading. Nothing more, nothing less. Everyone who chooses to do something that isn't work is at a huge financial disadvantage.
F, Child Benefit is lower-rate junior CI, that's all.
SB, most things which people choose to do which aren't work are not things which stop the human race dying out. Look, we're never going to agree on this so please shut up, you're wasting everybody's time.
"people's desire to have sex will never go away and the government must continue to support this"
Yet you continue to think "Child Benefit" is a good idea."
SB, what century are you living in? the 19th? Have you never heard of contraception, you know, that method by which people can have sex without having children?
If you think people don't need a financial incentive to have children, then look at Italy, Russia or France. If women don't have enough babies, then who the f*** is going to do the work that pays the interest or pays the tax that pays your pension when you are a pensioner?
Ah the We'll die out if you don't pay people to have sex argument...
7 billion people say you're wrong (the number created without subsidy).
It's special pleading of the worst kind "It's for ze children"!
I could claim that
"If we don't subsidise people to buy things we'll have no economy!"
It's just as nonsense as getting other people to fund procreational habits.
B, ta for back up.
SB, I know what it's like having kids, I know that mothers earn less, I am happy to do with a slightly lower CI so that other people with young kids get a slightly higher CI. End of.
Your last argument is nonsensical, it's bordering on Home-Owner-Ist its nonsensicality.
As far as I am concerned Child Benefit is CI for under 18s. Personally I'm all for upping the age limit to 65.
#, I know what it's like having sailing, I know that pleasure sailors earn less, I am happy to do with a slightly lower CI so that other people with yachts get a slightly higher CI. End of.
There's a word for that sort of funding. Charity.
Childownerist!
D, fair enough.
SB, other people going sailing now won't pay my pension in future, will they? I'm pro-family and mildly feminist and there ends the debate.
"Ah the We'll die out if you don't pay people to have sex argument..."
Not only are you ignorant of contraception, you are also ignorant of demographics.
A hint - if the 7 billion people are all pensioners, who is paying their pension?
It's all very cute and reactionary to be against a CI/CB for children because poor people should know better than to breed, but isn't it special pleading to have a CI for people over 18, or to have it at all? The suggestion of having a 30-40£ a week CB/CI for kids isn't going to incentivise people having more children as opposed to now anyway, current maternity benefits, tax deductions + a range of other benefits (for single mums as an example), are much higher.
People don't necessarily need a financial incentive to have children, just not to have a financial disincentive, the total cost of having kids is going to be way over any CB no matter what.
B, as you correctly point out, having sex and taking time off work to bring up kids are two separate topics. Other people's sex lives are of absolutely no concern to me one way or another, other people's kids very much are.
Kj: "current maternity benefits, tax deductions + a range of other benefits (for single mums as an example), are much higher."
In the UK, there is something called "Child Tax Credits" which is a straight bung for unemployed "single" women, it is wa-a-ay too high. We don't get any tax breaks for kids in the UK and Child Benefit at present is pretty stingy, and stat maternity pay is also pretty stingy (plus it's loads of admin and hassle for employers). Maybe it's different in Norway.
The adult CI plus Child CI averages out to much the same as the current package (in the UK) so to be honest, people at the bottom would get less and people in the middle would get more, it's nice and flat and simple.
And clearly, as you say, if a "subsidy" to some type of behaviour is significantly less than the cost (loss of earnings + nappies and food and clothes and toys and stuff), it does not distort people's behaviour, job done.
MW: It's a tad more generous here, at least as maternity goes, not so with single housholds. But I'm still not making a financial gain by having kids by far.
it does not distort people's behaviour, job done.
I'm not sure that's entirely true though. Birthrates are higher in the Nordic countries where maternity benefits especially are higher. But, the high income taxes are also a distortion to descisions of having children, so it's all a big pot of distortions isn't it. And replacement rates are still not yet the 2.1 required for a stable population.
Kj, I was generalising.
It's the same with education vouchers, if the government says they will pay the full cost up to £20,000 a year, then schools would spend exactly £20,000 per year per pupil (mainly in salaries on themselves).
If you pitch the vouchers at something less than the normal cost and parents have to pay the difference, then there will be a lot of competition and concern about value for money at the margin, which is what really matters, and the cost/quality of education will be pretty much the same as if there were no vouchers at all, only more people will benefit from it.
Good point of the vouchers, and there is ofcourse minimal distortions in giving a flat CB from birth as opposed to heavily taxing income and giving a large chunk of maternity pay, even if both methods does not fully cover the cost of raising a child if add it all up.
I suggest we also let people of all ages vote, to do otherwise is exclusionary and cute.
The amazing thing is the idea that if we do not subsidise higher population densities than the market would provide we'll have zero population density. Purest nonsense on a stick.
Subsidy lowers quality and raises costs. Naked special pleading is embarrassing.
SB, we appear to agree on most things, but any more of this aggressive sort of crap and I'm going to delete it, this is your final warning.
SB, you must be a relation of Hastings, your method of argument is so facile, English cannot be your mother tongue. For your information, arguing by way of irrelevant examples and logical extremes doesn't convince anyone over the age of ten in this country and just makes you look puerile.
Post a Comment