The Mayor of London said the super-wealthy in Britain should be encouraged to give more to philanthropic causes and said it was a “tragedy” that Britons regarded giving large sums to charity as “somehow ostentatious”.
Too many of the super-rich were choosing to spend their money on a “grouse moor” or “schlosses in the Home Counties” rather than giving to good causes.
What is it with politicians telling other people how to live their lives and how to spend their money? The clue being in the “their money” bit. It isn’t Boris’ money, so he doesn’t get to decide how it is spent. If the super wealthy want to buy large properties, well, it’s their money to do as they please with. if they want to give to charity, good for them. if they don’t, well, it’s their money and none of this is any business of politicians, so a period of silence from Boris and the rest of the self-righteous busybodies who think they get to tell us what to do would be nice….
Mr Johnson, who lives in a £2.3million home in north London
Er…
Perhaps if they didn’t tax us to the hilt only to lob cash at fake charities anyway, we wouldn’t feel like we’ve already done our ‘bit’. Ta very much.
Isn’t one of the reasons why the super-rich are the super-rich precisely because they choose not to chuck their money away on projects which talk a good game but which deliver on very few of their promises – a category into which most of the large charities fall? These days, I have a rule of thumb – if a charity has enough money to splash out on TV advertising then they must have enough money to do the things they say their main aims are, and thus they clearly don’t need my widow’s mite. If, on the other hand, they’re small, local, entirely funded by public donation and have clear and concisely stated aims (which I support) then I’ll happily donate very generously.
Or the RNLI or the Lifeboats
I don’t give to anyone else, usually.
It’s yet another proof (if any were needed) that US Sci-Fi author Jerry Pournelle was totally correct when he first drafted his Iron Law of Bureaucracy.
Pournelle’s Iron Law of Bureaucracy states that in any bureaucratic organization there will be two kinds of people”:
First, there will be those who are devoted to the goals of the organization. Examples are dedicated classroom teachers in an educational bureaucracy, many of the engineers and launch technicians and scientists at NASA, even some agricultural scientists and advisors in the former Soviet Union collective farming administration.
Secondly, there will be those dedicated to the organization itself. Examples are many of the administrators in the education system, many professors of education, many teachers union officials, much of the NASA headquarters staff, etc.
The Iron Law states that in every case the second group will gain and keep control of the organization. It will write the rules, and control promotions within the organization.
Can any reader or commentor name a large organisation where this isn’t palpably so?
I agree with you LR,
I used to have some respect for Boris, but he lost any integrity he had when he started pro Muslim nonsense just after the Lee Rigby murder.
As for charity, people with money generally have it because they don’t give it away.
My list of donations is very short.
RNLI
The British Legion
and other army charities but NOT help for heroes any longer.
I used to donate to The RSPCA till the TV adverts became so dreadful.
thats it, charity begins at home and we have very little income.
I thought that philanthropy and charity were supposed to be the replacements for the welfare state in a Libertarian society? I always thought it was a stupid idea. Make them pay taxes instead. Then they don’t have to be philanthropists.
They are already taxed.