Linekar wins the tax appeal

[Derek Hardballs]

To clarify as it seems to be my words you're debating.

Charities have a place to do good work in some areas of society that shouldn't be state funded.  The example I gave was the local church roof.

Charities should not be needed to support core services that have been consistently underfunded by government.  Again I gave an example, this time of a school requiring specialist equipment.  This type of financial support should not be provided by volunteers and philanthropists.

I am not an advocate of a small state, hand downs from the rich doing their Smashy and Nicey charidee work and abusing the goodwill of so many socially conscious  people who consistently volunteer to make peoples lives better.

I do a lot of charity accounts work and let me tell you there's good and bad in that sector too, plenty money gets wasted.  The simplistic concept of government spending = bad and charity spending = good is simply not true.  It also misses the point that core services should never be reliant upon charity.

Scroll to bottom to see similar reply.

[Fido]

If it looks like a dog, and barks like a dog, then it is probably an employee trying to hide behind IR35 or a tax scheme.

I dispise people that use them. In my experience it's usually people that can afford to pay fair tax. Most people don't have that choice, due to PAYE.

Indeed.

No different to Starbucks et al who find “legal” loopholes to avoid paying tax. That’s exactly why they’re loopholes.

And today, we have some folk celebrating that Lineker wins this case. Incredibly, on the left side of politics. I despair, but it just shows how naive some people are. Or perhaps not naive, just desperate to get one over the “other side”, and in this case Labour supporters on social media cheering on a millionaire finding tax loopholes. Christ. Literally the rich being able to find loopholes (yes he’s won legally, that’s exactly why it’s a loophole!), and in this case PR their way to looking like the good guys. Which most of us plebs can’t do, as we’re not in the position to find the loophole, nor employ a top lawyer to defend ourselves.

Well done Lineker, you’re as morally upstanding as Starbucks and Amazon (who also pay the “right” amount of tax legally). FFS.

That was one of my major beefs with the EU is that allowed this “Luxco” bollocks to go on within one of their own member states. Incredible, really.

[Protheroe]

To clarify as it seems to be my words you're debating.

Charities have a place to do good work in some areas of society that shouldn't be state funded.  The example I gave was the local church roof.

Charities should not be needed to support core services that have been consistently underfunded by government.  Again I gave an example, this time of a school requiring specialist equipment.  This type of financial support should not be provided by volunteers and philanthropists.

I am not an advocate of a small state, hand downs from the rich doing their Smashy and Nicey charidee work and abusing the goodwill of so many socially conscious  people who consistently volunteer to make peoples lives better.

I do a lot of charity accounts work and let me tell you there's good and bad in that sector too, plenty money gets wasted.  The simplistic concept of government spending = bad and charity spending = good is simply not true.  It also misses the point that core services should never be reliant upon charity.

I don't disagree with much of that. We probably disagree on what comprises "core services", and I don't think I suggested all charity spending is good as my posts the other day on the rancid Oxfam will attest.

[CA Baggie]

To clarify as it seems to be my words you're debating.

Charities have a place to do good work in some areas of society that shouldn't be state funded.  The example I gave was the local church roof.

Charities should not be needed to support core services that have been consistently underfunded by government.  Again I gave an example, this time of a school requiring specialist equipment.  This type of financial support should not be provided by volunteers and philanthropists.

I am not an advocate of a small state, hand downs from the rich doing their Smashy and Nicey charidee work and abusing the goodwill of so many socially conscious  people who consistently volunteer to make peoples lives better.

I do a lot of charity accounts work and let me tell you there's good and bad in that sector too, plenty money gets wasted.  The simplistic concept of government spending = bad and charity spending = good is simply not true.  It also misses the point that core services should never be reliant upon charity.

I don't disagree with much of that. We probably disagree on what comprises "core services", and I don't think I suggested all charity spending is good as my posts the other day on the rancid Oxfam will attest.

2 quotes by you in this very thread:

“You can always donate that excess income to charities who're by and large far better at allocating resources than any government.”

“At least I know my money is going where it is needed.”

You implied from this your belief in charity spending to almost always be good.  I’m telling you this is far from too, especially as charities get bigger.  I’d question whether the Charity Commission is fit for purpose.

I think we’d most certainly disagree on core services.