Posts by Matthew Poole
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
provided that it's in existence for the purpose of profiting individuals.
That would be "provided that it's not in existence for the purpose of profiting individuals."
-
How about a Tobin Tax?
The problem with that idea is that the world, or at least the major currency-trading nations, needs to all be in on it together. Although our currency is heavily traded, we're a minnow in the markets. That gives NZ zero room to try and enforce a Tobin Tax in the absence of cooperation by the major trading economies and our main trading partners.
The only other solution is to de-float the currency, and that idea is just too obscene for words. I'm a free trade absolutist, and believe that the only way that NZ can ever hope to push along the free trade agenda is to never go backward on being the most open economy in the world. The alternative would see NZ consumers worse-off, the national economy in no better shape than it is now, potentially worse-off also, and NZ producers possibly on the wrong side of tariff wars with aggrieved trading partners.
-
But I don't think we can take a naive consequentialist approach to the state's treatment of religion --- again, consider if Buddhism were `more beneficial' than Islam; would it be right to help Buddhism more? I rather think not.
That would be why the state does nothing at all to benefit one religion over another. It merely sets the boundaries for defining "religion" and then offers assistance equally to any body meeting the appropriate criteria. Indeed, any organisation that can present a case that it's advancing "the public good" can become a charity provided that it's in existence for the purpose of profiting individuals. That's a pretty broad brush. The notion of a poets' collective, suggested somewhat facetiously above, would almost certainly qualify for charity status at the rules currently stand.
-
Remove all tax benefits that encourage housing speculation
Well, it appears that, incredibly, that may just happen. There are a number of ideas that have been floated in columns in the Herald, detailing different ways that other jurisdictions have dealt with the issue of taxing residential property.
Unsurprisingly, the most negative column on the topic came from Roger Kerr. It's a shame he and his cronies have so much sway with the occupants of the Beehive, because NZ is a complete poster-child for the folly of believing that an unfettered market will do anything other than seek to enrich the largest players at the expense of all others. -
Cheers Scott. Talk about obscure naming!
andin, you actually proved something of my point. You dismiss out-of-hand as "in peoples minds" any suggestion that there's any link between donations through churches to their charitable activities and the spiritual activities of the churches. Which says that, actually, you don't understand it at all. I never said it was a tangible intertwining, I just said it was complicated. And it is, whether you like it or not.
-
Tom said lots of stuff that neatly summarises my position.
I'm a bit leery about comparing the Treaty and the US Constitution for a whole bunch of reasons, not least of which is that the Constitution was explicitly written to be an adaptable document. The Treaty was, to put it crudely, a business arrangement. The Crown offers these things, the Maori offer those things in return, deal done. Drafted with an explicit recognition of the ongoing relationship? Not so much.
-
Oh, should point out that being accorded charity status doesn't just happen to trusts. Any legal person can be a charity, provided that they meet the appropriate requirements. The theatre with which I am involved is an incorporated society, and also a charity.
-
The Greenpeace Education Trust is a charity. Since I can't find any other entries in the register, I assume that the campaigning actions of Greenpeace are not granted charitable status.
I'm sure the IRD would be very interested to know that, since they allow people to claim rebates for donations to Greenpeace.
-
Yes. To the tune of $27k/year per trust. Multiple trusts with identical trustees will get the spidey-senses of IRD investigators going, too, so it's not a particularly easy restriction to get around.
I thought the tax was based on the giver, not the destination. So you can give away $27K tax free/year, to one or more things. You get taxed on anything over $27K, even if it goes to multiple destinations.
Yes, you're correct, and that does mesh with what I said. The point to which I was responding was about trusts giving to beneficiaries, tax-free. What I said, though possibly not quite sufficiently clearly, was that a trust can give up to $27k/year. My additional note was to anyone who was thinking that Pope Brian could just set up a bunch of trusts, funnel funds through them all, and get around the $27k limit by having multiple trusts making payments to the same pool of beneficiaries - his family.
-
Paul, could you provide some proof that it's a company? There's no Sanitarium Limited listed with the Companies Office, or indeed any company with Sanitarium in its name. The Sanitarium NZ website makes no references to the structure that's used.
Who are you to ask us to move on? Discussion about taxation of various trading structures is directly relevant to this wider issue of charitable status and payment, or otherwise, of income tax. People appear to be interested in the topic.