This is in spite of the average Swede’s strong sense of duty, derived from their culture. This is the reason that their long trend to liberal socialism hasn’t got a lot messier a lot sooner, like it will, say, in New Zealand.

After all, we’ve only had a strong socialist central government since the mid 19th century. Any day now . . .

Care to provide some proof that the Swedes have banned free speech or private schools?

This is in spite of the average Swede’s strong sense of duty, derived from their culture. This is the reason that their long trend to liberal socialism hasn’t got a lot messier a lot sooner, like it will, say, in New Zealand.

I recommend the classic, classic, classic book “The Road to Serfdom”, by Friedrich Hayek.

Sweden.

Like I say, I don’t know. It would probably depend on the surrounding circumstances and what else was triggering the alarm on that organisation.

We don’t want not-for-profit organisations not being able to retain earnings for future development, that would be disastrous.

Quite, quite mad.

He tends to write more like this

“Attentive – indeed any – readers will note that ignorance of Kalecki’s Principle of Increasing Risk can be seen as the grotesque sophistry that we have come to expect of Chomsky and his undergraduate cultists. Well, old bean, praise for a high and progressive marginal rate of personal taxation clearly points to rank stupidity allied to Fascism. I repeat: this pseudonymous master-intellect’s missive is to be regarded as support for totalitarianism and anti-Semitism. It will not have been lost on anyone in this ng that Chomsky knew full well that he was promoting the benign nature of a Nazi’s bigotry, because it is no less than the type of lunatic flat-earther conspiracy theory that would appeal to the feeble-minded and pro-fascist, and so is eminently well-suited to a Chomsky ng. Note for record: hatred of western democracies and admiration of totalitarianism amounts to the usual snobbery displayed by Chomsky’s groupies.”

More generally though,

Use of the tax system to punish people is really the province of newly emerging Asian democracies. In Sth Korea in the 1990′s for example you would get a tax audit for having a foreign vehicle registered in your name if you were a local. They have grown through that phase. One would have thought our democracy was mature enough not to allow a Government to wield arbitrary power over its citizenry to this extent. It smacks of regression to despotic dictatorship.

So all the charity would lose is that donations made to them would no longer be tax free.

Nothing else.

Not so.

Once the Charities Commission register has been running for two years, all not-for-profit organisations including trusts and incorporated societies will need to be registered if they want to keep/obtain exemption from income tax.

NB tax exemption is from income tax only and will not be and never has been exemption from other tax requirements such as GST.

Tax exemption, once indicated as probably applicable by IRD (which is all the letter you got ever said) is currently policed by self-assessment thereafter. This will no longer be the case. Each organisation/company seeking income tax exemption will need to be registered and complete annual returns to keep their exemption. The returns are more detailed than company annual returns and have questions covering sources of income and types of activity of the entity. The answers to these questions will allow the Commission to assess whether ongoing income tax exemption is warranted.

I haven’t seen anything on this specifically but I’m picking that if you want tax rebate on donations you make to a charity, that charity will have to be registered.

For its definition of charity, the Commission continues to rely on the “four heads of charity” as outlined in the Elizabethan act (1601 I think): poverty relief, education, religion, public benefit.

There has been some debate around the role of advocacy and the inclusion/exclusion of sporting bodies. No clear guidelines have emerged on how the Commission will play the advocacy question, it’ll almost certainly be done on a case-by-case basis depending on the organisation’s other activities.

This is old news. The Commission has been through a bill, select committees, an Act, regulation formation and finally aims to open its register in February 2007. It’s only now that the press have decided to point out that advocacy-only organisations may (only may) have a problem getting registered.

Wake up people. The time to comment on this was two years ago.

DPF said:

People are confusing the difference between being a not for profit orgn and a charity.

Plenty of not-for-profit organisations have tax exemption from IRD and will therefore fall under the auspices of the Commission if they want to retain that exemption. People are confusing the difference between being a not-for-profit organisation and not making a surplus – too often the assumption is that NFPs don’t make surpluses and therefore have no income tax liability anyway.

I think in the past not-for-profit organisations have been getting tax exemption when they are not strictly charities. The fourth head of charity has been loosely interpreted and I believe it is this that will be tightened up.