Philanthropy

[Dave225]

Now there is a big word.

 

In generations gone by there were many wealthy people but it was very often the case that they put some of their money back into the Community through philanthropic deeds. How many towns and cities have had libraries, civic centres, cottage hospitals and even whole housing estates paid for by wealthier members of society. The Victorians in particular made giving something back a major part of their contribution to civilisation. Yes, this was in part due to the terrible conditions the poor were living in, but there was no compulsion for the wealthy to give, they just felt it was the correct thing to do.

 

Nowadays there are again a lot of wealthy people, not always deserved, but there seems to be a distinct lack of desire to put any of the wealth back to help the common people. Now some of you may have examples to quote, but I would suggest that in general, the wealthy tend to keep their hands well and truly in their pockets. Any facilities in local communities are more often than not paid for by the community through taxes or even donations from the general public themselves. I am not including things such as cookery schools or TV shows that promise the winner a job or career but in fact more often than not the main intention is to publicise the main 'star', but it would be a nice gesture if some of the wealth was to filter back to ordinary people. The Councils keep closing swimming pools so why not donate a leisure centre, or a library, or even a ward at the local hospital. Now if a banker was to use a major portion of his bonus to such an act, then I am sure they would be held in a better light.

 

Or am I just being too optimistic??

 

[malc d]

Yes you are Dave.

 

 

p.s.

 

But I would recommend Bill Gates gets an honourary knighthood !

 

 

;-)

[LordThornber]

Well football won't be everyones idea of philanthropy but the late Jack Walker deserves a mention in my view.

 

Jack, and his Brother Fred started their sheet metal business in Blackburn, grew it to staggeringly large proportions and eventually sold it to the then British Steel for £330 million.

 

They had the foresight to buy acres of land around the factory which has now been developed into industrial units by the dozen. The Family still own all the land.

 

Jack was a great Blackburn Rovers fan, and when the time was right, (tax reasons perhaps), he chucked millions at his beloved hometown football club.

 

The team won the Premiership title in 1994 on the back of his staggering investment and have remained in the top tier ever since, albeit with a 2 year hiatus when relegated.

 

Jack Walker is a legend in our Town, his name is still chanted regulary at the ground. A Blackburn man who put smiles on thousands of Blackburn faces - mine included.

 

Martyn

 

[Mel B]

It may be that the wealthier member of society do contribute (there's a tax benefit anyway isn't there?) but prefer to keep quiet about it, whereas in the past not all philanthropists were doing it purely out of the goodness of their hearts, but to ensure they had a reliable and healthy workforce and so they themselves had a better 'standing' in the community. I'm not saying this negates any of the good things they did, but that not all of them were so philanthropical (?) as is being suggested.

 

Anyone who gives anything for any cause should be encouraged, no matter what their reason for doing so.

[BGD]

Interesting.

 

I think to assume philanthropy is maybe to see the past through very rose tinted spectacles.

 

In previous times there were a couple of big practical factors in play:

 

1. Very strong Protestant Church pressure on the rich man having to buy his way into heaven by being philanthropic towards the poor. Such big "charitable" acts by the super-wealthy were very often driven by philanthropy at all; but rather by massively hyped religion-based fear of going "down" for eternity rather than up if they didn't do them.

That church-propagated fear has all but disappeared nowadays, as has most peoples belief in it.

 

2. There was no income tax. Nor National Insurance. Unless the very rich, high earners gave some of their money away, they kept it all for themselves. There were almost no "indirect" taxes either (taxes upon spending), so no VAT for example.

Now, over 60% of what every higher rate taxpayer earns is instantly taken from them, before they even receive it, by force of law by the Government, supposedly to help support the poor/the sick/the elderly etc. The chap who is "paid" a million pounds a year, nowadays only receives less than 40% of it.........the other £600,000 is automatically taken off him and goes into the "Public Sector" spending. That same chap then pays BIG taxes on his house, and just about all his other spending of what's left from his income: his electricity, his gas, his, petrol, his clothes, his food, his car etc etc etc. He even pays tax (Employers National Insurance) on any jobs that he employs anyone else in.

As well as any income, the growth in any capital from his investments is ( in simple terms) now taxed as well, at another 40% too.

Then, when he dies a full 40%of his entire wealth that he managed to build up on what he had left from his income after all those earlier taxes, is then taken in yet another tax.

Thus the State has in effect taken over for the individual - it is the State which collects " contributions to good causes" by force from rich people and passes at least some of that money to the destitute.

I strongly suspect that most high-earners, once their accountant has told them just how massively much they must now pay into the State "pot" to give to those who can't/don't choose to earn it themselves, is a helluva lot less enthusiastic about voluntarily giving away much of what's then left.

 

 

 

 

 

 

In practice, I would suggest that very few of those old-days rich "philanthropists" ever gave away 60% of their income EVERY year, than then maybe 20% of everything they spent every year, and then 40% of every bit of investment income/capital gain, and then 40% of everything in their name on the day that they died. Would you? Honestly?

 

 

 

 

You could therefore argue that the increasing role(or interference, depending on your point of view) of the State in peoples lives has meant there are now millions more, Law-enforced-philanthropists.

No-one gives them any thanks any more though, or builds statues in their honour.

And an awful lot of what the Government then spends their money on doesn't seem to be on the genuinely poor or destitute at all.

[Lord Braykewynde]

BGD - 2012-01-28 10:36 AM

 

And an awful lot of what the Government then spends their money on doesn't seem to be on the genuinely poor or destitute at all.

 

By that I suppose the government are philanthropists because they give a lot of (our) money away for the eurocrats to go on their jollies and to rule the roost over our laws & culture. Plus billions more so despots in the third world can arm themselves. Yes, true philanthropists :-)

[malc d]

Lord Braykewynde - 2012-01-28 11:22 AM

 

BGD - 2012-01-28 10:36 AM

 

And an awful lot of what the Government then spends their money on doesn't seem to be on the genuinely poor or destitute at all.

 

By that I suppose the government are philanthropists because they give a lot of (our) money away for the eurocrats to go on their jollies and to rule the roost over our laws & culture. Plus billions more so despots in the third world can arm themselves. Yes, true philanthropists :-)

 

 

I don't think you could class the government as philanthropists.

 

Freely giving away other peoples money doesn't count.

 

 

:-|

[Dave225]

I could mention that a lot of our wealthy do not actually pay taxes as they base themselves in Switzerland and live here as non doms. They also in some cases pay themselves through dividends which are tax paid by the Company so again, they pay nothing.

 

I did also mention that I am sure there are some worthy examples, and they are to be commended, but dare I be a bit picky and say that in many cases the donation is for something that has affected them personally such as research into a disease that their parents suffered from. Not decrying it but I was more thinking about general gifts for all the Community. Now if I was able to visit the 'Richard Branson Leisure Centre' or the 'Philip Green Library' or even the 'Bob Diamond Old People's Home' then I may be a little more convinced. Maybe they are actually out there, just not in my neck of the woods. OK, some day in the future I may be able to visit the Alex Salmond Centre for Scottish Studies', but I am not holding my breath. Sounds too much Kim Jong II to me.

 

In our original Edinburgh Royal Infirmary the entrance hall was lined with names of people who had made donations to the hospital over its lifetime of a hundred years plus, these included Sir Walter Scott and other not so well known people. Sometimes the amount was hundreds of pounds or even very small sums. Some may argue that the donation was more to get their name in front of others and therefore had selfish tendencies, but at least the hospital was able to expand as a result and benefit all. Again, others may say that is what taxes are for, but we all know much of those disappear into bottomless pits. By making personal donations people are often more interested in knowing where the money is actually going and that might be no bad thing. It may also precipitate a more generous culture for all our society instead of 'what is mine is mine, and yours is mine as well' as we seem to currently have.

 

I agree I am being optimistic but............

[Lord Braykewynde]

Dave225 - 2012-01-28 1:00 PM

 

In our original Edinburgh Royal Infirmary the entrance hall was lined with names of people who had made donations to the hospital

 

Mentioning this place reminded me of when a colleague and myself had to travel to that hospital to bring a patient back to Hereford County hospital where he would be nearer home. He had been to Edinburgh for hogmanay and had suffered a coronary.

The day before England had played Scotland at Murrayfield and had won by a touch down in the last seconds. The Scots appealed that he hadn't got his hand on the ball but the referee awarded it. After hours of slow motion play backs I don't think it was ever decided if the ref was right.

I jokingly told my colleague that whatever he does he mustn't mention rugby after we'd crossed the border and during the journey I reminded him of this several times.

On the southern outskirts of Edinburgh we came across a large roundabout and noticed that there was a police patrol car parked up so we decided to ask for directions. The one copper asked us if we'd missed our turning seeing where we had come from on the side of the ambulance.

"No" I said, " we are looking for Murrayfield, we've come to pick up some turf".

My mate dug me in the ribs after recalling what I'd been saying and called me all the names under the sun and there wasn't a nice one amongst them.

That wasn't the end of it because we did get into more light hearted banter with ambulance crews later about who should have won especially after we got back from the pub later that night.

Perhaps someone will recall that match and put a date to it.