Comments on: Dame Elisabeth: the end of an era of philanthropy?

By: Venise Alstergren

Venise Alstergren — Fri, 07 Dec 2012 04:10:33 +0000

BOB TB: Don’t forget a huge swag of American philanthropists had ancestors who started giving away mega bucks, because they just didn’t have to pay any tax at all.

Nevertheless, if the day should ever come when an Oz government would say here’s your tax bill please tick the box where you would like the money to go to- It only has to be by category. i.e. Science, medicine, animals, etc, etc. With the Churches at the bottom of the list, and money towards the upkeep of British royals-when they come here, at the second last box-that will be the day when I start to donate towards charity.

{As a matter of fact I do donate money, but just don’t have enough to be of major importance.}

By: Venise Alstergren

Venise Alstergren — Fri, 07 Dec 2012 03:44:51 +0000

QWERTY: When was the last time I had millions of dollars to give away?

By: Jim Hart

Jim Hart — Fri, 07 Dec 2012 01:38:16 +0000

You don’t have to have a spare million to be philanthropic, you can start at almost any level. It’s more about sharing what you can afford and doing it in a planned way, not just responding to an appeal for the Salvos or bushfires or whatever, though that’s important too.
As for choosing your charity instead of paying via taxes, that doesn’t diminish the value of the gift or grant. We need both systems and I’m happy to support both. Govt funding through taxation is a very blunt instrument that necessarily favours large organisations and bureaucracies.

By: Dogs breakfast

Dogs breakfast — Thu, 06 Dec 2012 10:59:42 +0000

Thanks qwerty. It always makes things easier when you open your mouth and remove all doubt.

By: Dogs breakfast

Dogs breakfast — Thu, 06 Dec 2012 10:58:03 +0000

“”If the Australian population saw the wealthy being generous philanthropists they would be more sympathetic and not want to cut them down.”

Amen to that brother!

By: michael crook

michael crook — Thu, 06 Dec 2012 10:27:26 +0000

even if they would pay a little tax, that would help. How come a Labor government that cuts supporting parents benefits refuses to tax the wealthy?

By: Bob the builder

Bob the builder — Thu, 06 Dec 2012 08:18:29 +0000

@Venise
I didn’t say it was a good system or that we could direct our dollars exactly as we’d like, but it’s a system we are all a part of and invested in … except the rich, who pay bugger all tax, very often pay low wages, then get to decide which charities to support, rather than paying tax like the rest of us and deciding together through public policy where to direct our common wealth.
Of course the US has more philanthropists - they’ve always had a huge underclass and a cohort of incredibly rich tax avoiders and some of them feel twinges of guilt about their unjust society and drop a few crumbs. Big deal. I’d prefer a just society any day.

It’s just like tipping - the US is a tipping culture because service staff are kept poor and servile. Here we aren’t (or weren’t) a tipping culture because working people organised for good wages and conditions and take (or at least used to take) tipping as a degrading insult.

By: Gerry Hatrick, OAP

Gerry Hatrick, OAP — Thu, 06 Dec 2012 06:34:24 +0000

when was the last time any of you gave away millions of dallars? hmm?

+1 for reading and comprehension:

Petre says he was shocked to discover during his time on the Sydney Children’s Hospitals Network board that the average household in western Sydney donated a higher proportion of their net worth than the uber-wealthy.

I’ll answer your question when I have more than a million dollars, thanks

By: zut alors

zut alors — Thu, 06 Dec 2012 06:26:08 +0000

qwerty, your point is fallacious - the generosity of donations is proportionate to income as the article points out.

By: qwerty bluett

qwerty bluett — Thu, 06 Dec 2012 05:32:40 +0000

when was the last time any of you gave away millions of dallars? hmm?

By: Stevo the Working Twistie

Stevo the Working Twistie — Thu, 06 Dec 2012 05:13:31 +0000

+1 Bob.

By: Venise Alstergren

Venise Alstergren — Thu, 06 Dec 2012 05:05:19 +0000

BOB THE BUILDER: You forget that taxpayers money goes to support all different religious institutions-especially the Catholic church.

If, and when, we taxpayers can direct where our money goes, almost every charity deserves a bit of help. I bitterly resent my money going towards the Church, but am happy to donate to the odd butterfly or two at the local zoo.

By: Bob the builder

Bob the builder — Thu, 06 Dec 2012 03:46:57 +0000

I don’t believe in philanthropy, I believe in taxation.
Why should the rich get to choose individually where their excess wealth gets spent? The rest of us have to decide collectively via the taxation system and our parliaments where our money goes - why should the rich be any different?

By: zut alors

zut alors — Thu, 06 Dec 2012 03:33:39 +0000

In general, Australia’s wealthy appear to be under the misapprehension that they can take it with them.

In Queensland Chuck Feeney has donated at least $200M to medical research. Unsurprisingly, he’s an American.

By: nullifidian

nullifidian — Thu, 06 Dec 2012 02:39:55 +0000

The true philanthropists in Australia, and especially in the US, are those performing essential tasks for wages below the poverty line; those who clean the toilets in corporate headquarters for example. If the executives in the finance industries were to give away 90% of their salaries they would still be better off than those working in the age care industries.