charity

charity begins at home, or so they say. perhaps they should be saying that charity begins in the tax accountants office. recent times haven't been good to the con/dem government: pastygate,jerrycangate,kitchen dinnergate. now we can chuck in the growing clamour from charities that the new rules on tax exemption on charitable donations has the potential to stop the very wealthy from donating as much to charity. hold the fucking phone. i have been aware that charitable donations can receive tax exemptions because i keep getting letters from the tate and the royal academy telling me that my donations are tax deductible. it has never concerned me because i have never had enough money to give an amount to charity that would allow me to worry about my tax. secondly the only concern i would have about my donation is that the charity gets as much of the money i give as possible. i always thought that the point of giving to charity was the satisfaction of knowing that you had done something worthwhile. isn't that the reason why people jog up mountains or spend days in a bath of cold baked beans? it might be the reason why those of us on average incomes do it. however for the very wealthy it seems that the point of giving to charity is just to save on tax. i shouldn't be surprised, but there you go: i am. perhaps when we are next told how such and such millionaire has given so much to charity there can also be a qualifying statement letting us know how that has helped them with their tax. don't get me wrong i admire them for giving anything at all, but i don't want to be hearing about how generous they are if it is all driven by how it helps them financially. at least declaring their tax benefits from all their giving might at least remove that smug 'arn't-i-the-most-wonderful-rich-person-you-have-met look from their faces.