Time to cull the charity con?

[Barry]

Apparently gift aid only costs the Treasury about 1.38 billion a year. I would have expected more.
I think the system works fairly well, but in the case of charities like Mermaids, I think there needs to be fast track withdrawal of their status when they cross the stated line of their purpose.

[Barry]

And you think I've been at the sherry

O it  isn't ....maths from the [highlight]truss[/highlight] school of economics.
They get relief because [highlight]Ouse[/highlight] of their charitable [highlight]status,like[/highlight] Steve pointed out he has no kids so why should he chip in at which point truss featured [highlight]agai [/highlight]and you call others stupid.

[Nick]

And you think I've been at the sherry

You can have your fat fingers back, they're crap

[cromwell]

OK, so tell me which tax you would who to pay?

And you think I've been at the sherry

[Nick]

Your maths is as good as my ipad spell checker (bloody thing)

look private schools and many other charities are no such thing,it is a tax scam you want your kid educated privately pay the going rate including tax just like any other service you purchase,and something none of you ever answered from the begining of the thread it's not just Mr Punch some tories have said it's unfair.

SO paying £40,000 for the education out of money you've already paid PAYE and NIC's isn't paying the going rate including tax is it not?
Have you been at the Sherry again Mr C?

OK, so tell me which tax you want who to pay?

[cromwell]

Steve doesn't chip in a single penny to private schools, and his life is not impacted a single iota. If I don't give you ten quid you have not lost ten quid and you haven't contributed to the ten quid at all.

Your maths is as good as my ipad spell checker (bloody thing)

look private schools and many other charities are no such thing,it is a tax scam you want your kid educated privately pay the going rate including tax just like any other service you purchase,and something none of you ever answered from the begining of the thread it's not just Mr Punch some tories have said it's unfair.

[Nick]

O it  isn't ....maths from the truss school of economics.
They get relief because Ouse of their charitable status,like Steve pointed out he has no kids so why should he chip in at which point truss featured agai and you call others stupid.

Steve doesn't chip in a single penny to private schools, and his life is not impacted a single iota. If I don't give you ten quid you have not lost ten quid and you haven't contributed to the ten quid at all. 

[cromwell]

All true.

I am a bit surprised that Starmer has gone down this route. A lot of the electorate will just see it the usual lefty spite that designed to appeal to the Labour party's dimwittery, but nopt the sort of thing that will encourage them to vote for the Brothers and Sisters.

But we shall see

O it  isn't ....maths from the truss school of economics.
They get relief because Ouse of their charitable status,like Steve pointed out he has no kids so why should he chip in at which point truss featured agai and you call others stupid.

[Borchester]

The tax payer doesn't subsidise private schools. They are funded entirely privately.
The opposite of this statement is correct.
The parents of private school students subsidise tax payer funded schools.

For every student in private school 1 less student is attending state school.

The same amount of tax is being paid. But less state services are being provided. This serves as charity to the state.
The money is being taxed for exactly nothing in return.

The taxes are collected in order to collectively provide school places that are ultimately not being provided to the parent of a private school student.
These collected taxes are nothing more or less than a charitable donation towards the education of other peoples children.

The provision of private school place creates a one for one provision of a free state school place for someone else's child.
Assuming the parent is a UK tax payer.

All true.

I am a bit surprised that Starmer has gone down this route. A lot of the electorate will just see it the usual lefty spite that designed to appeal to the Labour party's dimwittery, but nopt the sort of thing that will encourage them to vote for the Brothers and Sisters.

But we shall see

[Baff]

....It's not silly T00ts why should taxpayers subsidise a private system?

...

Anyway as I said in the op there  are other businesses masquerading as charities,I deal indirectly with one and they are certainly not charitable and deserve no tax breaks.

The charity commission and charity industry is long due an overhaul.

The tax payer doesn't subsidise private schools. They are funded entirely privately.
The opposite of this statement is correct.
The parents of private school students subsidise tax payer funded schools.

For every student in private school 1 less student is attending state school.

The same amount of tax is being paid. But less state services are being provided. This serves as charity to the state.
The money is being taxed for exactly nothing in return.

The taxes are collected in order to collectively provide school places that are ultimately not being provided to the parent of a private school student.
These collected taxes are nothing more or less than a charitable donation towards the education of other peoples children.

The provision of a private school place creates a one for one provision of a free state school place for someone else's child.
Assuming the parent is a UK tax payer.

[cromwell]

Clott? Clott? What the f**k is a clott?

You by the looks of it.  

[Borchester]

Except that he isn't, is he?

If every bit of Anglo Saxon is automatically deleted, the little clott is not being virtuous, just twee.

Clott? Clott? What the F@@@ is a clott?

[Borchester]

Well in this instance Smurfy is totally correct he is following the rules.

Except that he isn't, is he?

If every bit of Anglo Saxon is automatically deleted, the little C@@@ is not being virtuous, just twee.

[papasmurf]

Must be tough for a poster with their thoughts and vocabulary mainly limited to profanities...

That must make it very difficult for several posters on this forum but not for me.

[cromwell]

Why do you delete all these expletives — can't you spell them...?

Well in this instance Smurfy is totally correct he is following the rules.