Imagine if charities and ipcs were allowed to run amok without any regulations. They wouldn't have to disclose anything and people would just donate blindly to those who focused on marketing.
-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
Is Income Tax robbery?
- Thread starter Pratters
- Start date
GIMH
Norwood's on Fire
I must have missed the bit where it said all taxes were abolished
Vicious circle in operation
Ausage
Well-known member
I actually don't mind the idea of regulations on charities/nfps tbh. Nothing draconian, but laws saying you have to spend the money on the purpose for which it was given or disclose your admin cut. Ok with them maintaining DGR status too.
The sector is full of hippies who don't know how to manage money
vic_orthdox
Global Moderator
People won't go to effort with regards to taxation/concessions.
Even something like the concessional home savings accounts, or superannuation in Australia, only ever gets taken up when you use a financial advisor to run it all for you.
The venn diagram that has people who use a financial advisor, and those willing to pay more tax, would have very little intersection I'd say. Some of our clients can't believe the concessions that they get through superannuation, and agree they are too generous, but they're not using our services to not take them up.
Similarly, the number of under 30s who use financial advisors is so low, so programs that offer younger people similar are never taken up, or provide such small benefits that the cost (time and money) involved pretty much neutralises it.
Even something like the concessional home savings accounts, or superannuation in Australia, only ever gets taken up when you use a financial advisor to run it all for you.
The venn diagram that has people who use a financial advisor, and those willing to pay more tax, would have very little intersection I'd say. Some of our clients can't believe the concessions that they get through superannuation, and agree they are too generous, but they're not using our services to not take them up.
Similarly, the number of under 30s who use financial advisors is so low, so programs that offer younger people similar are never taken up, or provide such small benefits that the cost (time and money) involved pretty much neutralises it.
