Comments on: The Coalition’s self-defeating political expenditure laws

By: Andrew Norton

Andrew Norton — Tue, 05 Feb 2008 03:31:20 +0000

ChrisPer - The idea of profit is problematic in non-profits; since they can simply eliminate it by spending it all on their purposes. And it would deter charitable giving if donors thought it would be taxed.

I think there is a case for eliminating tax deductibility of donations to charities as part of wide-ranging tax reform, but not for trying to tax non-distributed surpluses of not-for-profits (I haven’t seen any estimates on this, but I expect the total ’surpluses’ of not-for-profits aren’t massive in the context of the overall economy, and of course would be reduced further if they were taxed.)

By: ChrisPer

ChrisPer — Tue, 05 Feb 2008 03:19:09 +0000

What about the tax status of charities?

They are exempted from paying tax on their income because the income is directed to agreed socially desirable ends.

SOME degree of transparency is needed to ensure the contributing stakeholders - ie volunteers, donors and government (via tax exemption) are not being ripped off.

In the US, churches that get too involved in directing voter intentions can lose tax exempt status. Its a good idea.

By: Sinclair Davidson

Sinclair Davidson — Mon, 04 Feb 2008 08:19:07 +0000

Yes, we do. I’m unconvinced, though, that requiring charities to report political expenditure is unreasonable.

By: Bingo Bango Boingo

Bingo Bango Boingo — Mon, 04 Feb 2008 08:08:47 +0000

Is subjecting charities to over-engineered disclosure laws, ie so that they must “fully report on every dollar they spend, and the purpose of that expenditure” on the table? By table I hope you don’t mean ‘on my mind’. I’m not the one making sweeping positive statements. Let’s just focus on where we can free the citizenry from government, rather than worrying about whether the rules are the same for this or that kind of organisation. Surely we agree on that.

BBB

By: Sinclair Davidson

Sinclair Davidson — Mon, 04 Feb 2008 06:56:57 +0000

Is that proposal on the table?

By: Bingo Bango Boingo

Bingo Bango Boingo — Mon, 04 Feb 2008 05:01:51 +0000

“Charities raise money from the public Jason, and should face the same levels of accountability as do any other organisation that raises money from the public. For example, publicly listed companies.”

Sinc, so your solution to the over-regulation of business is to over-regulate the not-for-profit sector? Surely the correct approach is the exact opposite of your statement above.

BBB

By: Sinclair Davidson

Sinclair Davidson — Mon, 04 Feb 2008 00:12:02 +0000

Yes, yes. Okay, with one honourable exception (maybe two) “I have yet to hear any non-profit type say there should be a market test for either themselves or for-profits”.

I am sympathetic to the market test proposed in #8 (the PhD student and I even produced empirical evidence consistent with that idea), but that test is never applied to business, and many of the non-profits (again with one or two honourable exceptions) who are caught up in this web often complain about big business buying influence and the like - well, we know see that is a game almost everyone plays.

By: Jason Soon

Jason Soon — Mon, 04 Feb 2008 00:06:08 +0000

The reference to McCain was deliberate yes. Your and the IPA’s argument is similar to McCain’s for campaign finance reform and just as statist. The difference is McCain doesn’t claim to be a libertarian.

By: Andrew Norton

Andrew Norton — Sun, 03 Feb 2008 23:51:59 +0000

There is a market test in the sense that nobody is obliged to give any money to a charity or other non-profit, and there are thousands of charities and non-profits competing for donors. For many smaller non-profits, donors will have first-hand knowledge of what is happening or this will be visible in other ways.

By: Greg Lindsay

Greg Lindsay — Sun, 03 Feb 2008 23:31:09 +0000

Being a non-profit type myself, obviously you weren’t listening Sinc.