Friday the 13th.
No walking under ladders today then?
Definitely a day for avoiding black cats?
I didn't spot the date this morning as I have not been wearing my watch but noticed it when I switched on my computer at 3 44pm.
Just as well really as, whilst I don't consider myself to be superstitious, it's as well to be cautious when the signs are all there.
In fact knowing that I would have largely completed my locum chaplaincy here in Alhaurin after Easter, I checked for available flights some time ago and seem to recall that the choice was between a flight today or one next Tuesday, and, because I realised that it was Friday the 13th, I chose next Tuesday's flight.
But no-one else has commented on the date.
Like St Paul the Prime Minister is in journeying's often as he flits around Burma and Indonesia on his tour of Japan and South East Asia.
Not sure where he is this Friday the 13th but I hope he's avoiding black cats and walking under ladders.
I certainly hope that he is travelling safely and that nothing unlucky befalls him as he flies the flag for Britain and British trade and celebrates the slow emergence of democracy in Burma.
He may of course have read the article in today's Times in which his premiership is reviewed and, it appears, found wanting, but he needn't worry overly much because of course this is Britain and coups are not the British way of doing business, so it is unlikely that whilst he is away another aspirant Prime Minister will 'nick' his job.
But then it is Friday the 13th! so I hope that he is keeping his eyes open and knows what Boris's schedule is for today.
The commentator in The Times seems to feel that, as Mr Cameron is not Mrs Thatcher, that we should be keeping an eye on the next generation of women MP's.
The current big debate is about the implications of the tax changes affecting those who donate large sums to charities.
Charities are leading the charge, which is now joined by the Universities, the fear is that the rule change will mean people giving less because they will not be able to offset their giving against tax.
Until the change comes into effect in 2013 it is still possible to give to a charity out of untaxed income and then pay tax on the residual income, so wealthy donors, instead of paying tax on their income, give it away and pay less, sometimes no, tax at all.
This is apparently called philanthropy, a love of or for your fellow men and women.
The Chancellor felt that it had become a euphemism for tax avoidance which he didn't approve of.
This is not the same as setting up a company to reduce tax liability, although some wealthy people have set up 'charities' of their own as a tax avoidance/reduction strategy.
However, if the Government decides what it's expenditure is going to be in a given financial year and how much tax it needs to pay for that expenditure, and then allows some very wealthy people to give their money directly to charity and not pay tax, then everyone else has to pay more tax if there is not to be a shortfall of income over expenditure.
So as far as I can see, if extremely wealthy person X decides to give his money to charity Y which I may or may not approve of personally, then, because he doesn't pay tax on that £250,000 or so, I will have to pay more tax.
However if I sign a covenant and make a donation to a charity out of my already taxed income, the charity can already claim back the tax I have paid??
Am I missing something?
It seems to me that the playing field needs to be levelled here.
I think everyone should pay tax and give to the charity of their choice out of taxed income, charities can then claim the tax back on covenanted giving.
I know it means introducing a middle man or woman but better that than the current system which is hard to regulate and harder to police.
The clear implication of this is that charity should be regulated better and the Charity Commission should have greater capacity to ensure that regulation is effective.
The changes announced in the Budget appear to be contradicting the big society initiative but given the lack of clarity in the big society idea it would seem that anything could either contradict or support the big society without actually making it any clearer or easier to define.
The new Labour narrative, as in new or novel, rather than as in New Labour, is that the con-dems are confused, inept and have no strategy or if they do they keep contradicting it.
But maybe they're just unlucky, perhaps they'll call an election on Friday the 13th and then introduce a law banning black cats and walking under ladders?
No walking under ladders today then?
Definitely a day for avoiding black cats?
I didn't spot the date this morning as I have not been wearing my watch but noticed it when I switched on my computer at 3 44pm.
Just as well really as, whilst I don't consider myself to be superstitious, it's as well to be cautious when the signs are all there.
In fact knowing that I would have largely completed my locum chaplaincy here in Alhaurin after Easter, I checked for available flights some time ago and seem to recall that the choice was between a flight today or one next Tuesday, and, because I realised that it was Friday the 13th, I chose next Tuesday's flight.
But no-one else has commented on the date.
Like St Paul the Prime Minister is in journeying's often as he flits around Burma and Indonesia on his tour of Japan and South East Asia.
Not sure where he is this Friday the 13th but I hope he's avoiding black cats and walking under ladders.
I certainly hope that he is travelling safely and that nothing unlucky befalls him as he flies the flag for Britain and British trade and celebrates the slow emergence of democracy in Burma.
He may of course have read the article in today's Times in which his premiership is reviewed and, it appears, found wanting, but he needn't worry overly much because of course this is Britain and coups are not the British way of doing business, so it is unlikely that whilst he is away another aspirant Prime Minister will 'nick' his job.
But then it is Friday the 13th! so I hope that he is keeping his eyes open and knows what Boris's schedule is for today.
The commentator in The Times seems to feel that, as Mr Cameron is not Mrs Thatcher, that we should be keeping an eye on the next generation of women MP's.
The current big debate is about the implications of the tax changes affecting those who donate large sums to charities.
Charities are leading the charge, which is now joined by the Universities, the fear is that the rule change will mean people giving less because they will not be able to offset their giving against tax.
Until the change comes into effect in 2013 it is still possible to give to a charity out of untaxed income and then pay tax on the residual income, so wealthy donors, instead of paying tax on their income, give it away and pay less, sometimes no, tax at all.
This is apparently called philanthropy, a love of or for your fellow men and women.
The Chancellor felt that it had become a euphemism for tax avoidance which he didn't approve of.
This is not the same as setting up a company to reduce tax liability, although some wealthy people have set up 'charities' of their own as a tax avoidance/reduction strategy.
However, if the Government decides what it's expenditure is going to be in a given financial year and how much tax it needs to pay for that expenditure, and then allows some very wealthy people to give their money directly to charity and not pay tax, then everyone else has to pay more tax if there is not to be a shortfall of income over expenditure.
So as far as I can see, if extremely wealthy person X decides to give his money to charity Y which I may or may not approve of personally, then, because he doesn't pay tax on that £250,000 or so, I will have to pay more tax.
However if I sign a covenant and make a donation to a charity out of my already taxed income, the charity can already claim back the tax I have paid??
Am I missing something?
It seems to me that the playing field needs to be levelled here.
I think everyone should pay tax and give to the charity of their choice out of taxed income, charities can then claim the tax back on covenanted giving.
I know it means introducing a middle man or woman but better that than the current system which is hard to regulate and harder to police.
The clear implication of this is that charity should be regulated better and the Charity Commission should have greater capacity to ensure that regulation is effective.
The changes announced in the Budget appear to be contradicting the big society initiative but given the lack of clarity in the big society idea it would seem that anything could either contradict or support the big society without actually making it any clearer or easier to define.
The new Labour narrative, as in new or novel, rather than as in New Labour, is that the con-dems are confused, inept and have no strategy or if they do they keep contradicting it.
But maybe they're just unlucky, perhaps they'll call an election on Friday the 13th and then introduce a law banning black cats and walking under ladders?
No comments:
Post a Comment