A charity that relies in the main part on taxes is no more a charity than a prostitute is your girlfriend.
Why not wander over and view a few prostitutes over here...?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
A paucity of vision
Via Guido , I find this (for some reason) much lauded video of Attorney General Geoffrey Cox making the case for May's subsequently doom...
-
The Cuban Medical system. Over at the ASI blog, Tim Worstall asks if the Cuban Health statistics are true . I can't comment as to th... -
As usual, after the latest school-based mass murder , there are lots of people screaming about Americans and guns, American love of guns, an... -
Your humble Devil apologises for his lack of posting: it has become increasingly difficult to actually put quill to vellum, as it were. It...
4 comments:
Anyone checked out the RCP on fake charities?
http://www.rcplondon.ac.uk/sites/default/files/page/2010/12/2009-annual-report.pdf
Page 43 and on.
You are being unkind to prostitutes. They at least, provide a service to their clients and are honest about what they do.
If you want to honestly evaluate your position to determine if you are on the right side of the argument, don't you think the question, "Am I calling Macmillan Cancer Support a bunch of fakes" is a good place to start?
Macmillan is not a fake, the £1 million turnover threshold in "fakecharities" is absurd. You're unfairly labelling large charities as fake even though the state donations they receive are at best minimal.
To be quite honest I think your 10% of income from the state threshold is a little harsh, a test based on state money as a % of donations from the public would give a better indicator as to the purpose of the charity as either "a servant of the needy" or "a servant of the state"
Post a Comment