I agree that charities should not be government funded. Their main function is to mask the fact that society is dysfunctional in its neglect of appalling disparities. By doing away with subsidised charities these disparities would hove into view and the onus would properly fall to government to address them.
Apart from inherent conflicts of interest, in trying to patch society up, charities are essentially apologists for a rotten system.
The responsibility for an equitable and sustainable society is the responsibility of government in our so-called democracies--not rich philanthropists or missionaries!

Very interesting. There is unquestionably a case to be answered by at least the majority of charities, particularly those which thrive on the sheeples money & award humungous salaries to their fatcats whilst employing an army of unpaid volunteers. Someone nominated the Salvos as a major player involved with boat-people, however that mob is certainly not the only charitable institution that warrants being put under the microscope. I guess its possible there may be a legitimate charity out there somewhere that uses sheeple money honorably, but personally I'm not aware of one. Organizations like Guide Dogs, Blind Institute, BlueCare, CentreCare & RSPCA all support ridiculously overpaid drones. Unfortunately even if these entities were disbanded & gubmunt muppets were appointed to administer the interests, we'd still have parasitic operations that squandered far more sheeple money than they expended on worthy causes.

On the other hand we have registered charities which don't receive a cent in gubmunt support, although they may qualify for some 'non profit organization' benefits. The ones in which I've had an interest have invariably utilized the services of unpaid volunteers ONLY and I'm personally unaware of any of this kind of charitable institution that pays fatcats. I suggest this is the model we should be adopting, both for secular & religious franchise controlled operations.

"charities are essentially apologists for a rotten system."

yes, in more ways than one. When institutions like the Salvation Army spend hundreds of thousands, if not millions of dollars, on lawyers to fight victims of their horrific sexual abuse, they don't deserve donations let alone tax breaks.

44 - When institutions like the Salvation Army spend hundreds of thousands, if not millions of dollars, on lawyers to fight victims of their horrific sexual abuse, they don't deserve donations let alone tax breaks

Very true, nevertheless I don't believe that means we should necessarily throw the baby out with the bathwater, rather we should put ALL recipients of sheeple money under the microscope to find where our hard earned money is really going. The bigger organizations are probably the worst offenders, consequently they should be the very first to be investigated. Anything with legal leeches involved is almost certainly bent. One of the main difficulties in addressing kiddyfiddling is that its often the province of 'significant' people who invariably have connections which get them off the hook. Only the lower level scumbags that 'look' like a pedophile (eg the late Denis Ferguson) are targeted by society.

What disappointing comments!

I am unaware that the Salvation Army pays squillions to its top brass. I doubt it. Reference, please.

Similarly, I doubt that the Salvos spend a significant proportion of their income supporting or hiding kiddyfiddlers. Sure you have the right church? Or private school?

Indeed, while it is plausible that many charitable institutions do pay excessive sums to managers, this statement should not go unchallenged. It should be substantiated or withdrawn.

My own experience, as one who has been involved at least weekly and often daily, with charitable work for various (non religious) organisations for four decades, is that charitable organisations throughout Australia operate cheaply, even frugally, doing jobs which others choose not to tackle. For example, I could not personally do the work that Youth Off The Streets does, but I applaud those who do.

I am proud that Australia has strong, effective organisations that people can turn to on the basis of their needs, instead of on the basis of entitlements (ie government services) or commercial services (ie private industry). More strength to them!

I rarely give to charities.
I resent the hell out of "charities", paying admin fees to professional parasites?
Unheard of when I was a boy.
All the funds collected for this or that charity, went to those in need.
Only unpaid volunteers handled it.
And only the very lowest form of slime, would steal any of it!
We live in arguably the wealthiest nation on earth, and it is a sad commentary, that we need any home-grown charity at all, or that there's still is an ever widening gap between the haves and the have nots.
Don't throw out the baby with the bath water?
Sure, take the baby out first!
We need a different economic model and vast tax reform.
We need an economic model that works for us rather than a highly flawed one that make us slaves to it!
Charity ought not be tax deductible.
You should only give if you want to, and then only from a surplus!
And tax shouldn't be so high as to motivate giving as an avoidance scheme.
All income ought to be taxed.
Some organisations, may employ up to 150,000 people, have a trillion tucked away in this or that tax haven, own as much again in real estate and treasure; a plethora of income generating commercial enterprises, often staffed by unpaid volunteers; pay no tax, yet still have the begging bowl under your nose every Sunday!
And it does seem here in Oz, those with the least give the most?
The new age religion of Antisocial Individualism, has a lot to answer for!
Rhrosty.