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.

UK media investigation a few years ago into the Salvos, found that only 14% of the contributions they receive go towards their "Welfare" efforts.

John: Fyi

http://www.the-gcac.com/abusedocs/Mullighan-Inquiry-in-Children-in-State-Care.pdf

http://www.clan.org.au/page.php?pageID=229

Kipp - UK media investigation a few years ago into the Salvos, found that only 14% of the contributions they receive go towards their "Welfare" efforts.

I'd be surprised if as much as 14% went where its supposed to go, but just maybe that figure is correct. Certainly the figures I've been able to dredge up for comparable entities don't tell a particularly flattering story about major charities. My personal experience with a number of smaller entities that don't attract direct gubmunt handouts is better, however an associate tells me she has encountered significant issues with non-funded operations too. I guess its just human nature, give someone enough opportunity and there is no telling what they will do with it.

Dale has it ever occurred that we give charities exactly what we believe they are worth.

Has it then occurred to you we are really pi55ed off that governments at all levels then second guess us, & give far too much more of our tax money to these less than worthwhile mob.

Has it further occurred we hate even more those charities paying with our tax money, management consultants such as your self, ridiculously large fees to try to find for them, strategies to help them extract even more of our taxes from a gullible government.

Could you ever understand how disgusting it is to many of us that you, a management consultant, doing no chartable work, should be on the board of the, Victorian Council of Social Service. A more self serving mob than them, you are unlikely to find on a 10 day route march, so I guess you would fit in well.

At best you are a lobbyist, at worst a leach drawing blood not meant for you, from the system.

I suggest you would be best advised to keep your presence very discrete, lest the public start to complain very loudly about you, & others like you bleeding the system.

Some help to people is best carried out by the wonderful volunteers who do it, applying the donations of charitable donors (often themselves in straitened circumstances).

Other is best done by governments. That includes research, but charity after charity, desperate for more research into this or that ongoing medical tragedy (heart research, cancer research, epilepsy research, asbestosis research . . . the list is long), needs (often poor) people’s money.

When you kick in for research the word quickly goes round and you cop a constant stream of phone calls. It adds up quickly to unaffordable levels. Here is what I have done in self-defence:

1. Figured out what I can afford and set up a monthly direct debit for organisations like the Red Cross, the Salvos etc. whose work is one to one with people who need a hand.

2. Every time someone rings for a donation for research, recommend to the caller the following sequence:

#First, apply to NH&MRC (National Health and Medical Research Council).

#Second, if knocked back, ask the Department of Defence to peel off one of the F35 strike fighters ordered from the US military industrial complex to power Australian participation in US colonial wars ($122.5 million a pop, and an extra $22 million if we want an engine included) - and to fund the research instead.

#Third, take full page ads in The Australian telling what you sought and why, and how you are being refused by NHMRC and “Defence” and why they should cough up. Ring up regular present and past donors to help fund the ads. That’s something I would gladly kick in for.

Seems a growing number of sheeple have twigged to the fact that donations don't necessarily get to where they are supposed to, no doubt the fatcats at the top of the charitable institutions will be burning the midnight oil in search of new and innovative cons with which to pull the wool over the eyes of the sheeple. We can't trust our elected representatives to sort out the mess, in all probability they are on the take anyway. The worst part of this is that 'legitimate' charities are probably disadvantaged by the misdeeds of their less reputable brethren.

Government LOVE the charities they use them extensively to HIDE the real cost of the so-called refugees.

One problem of this method is as well as support the so-called refugees the Australian taxpayer is directly subsidizing the high salaries of the executives of the charities.

Something needs to change Juliar give us the REAL cost of these economic invaders not your rubbery figures that most people know are another one of your many lies.

Any organisation that can be labelled a religion is automatically considered a charitable organisation and therefore pays no taxes, no rates, nothing towards the state. Worse, they are not required to have their financial activities audited, so no one knows what they spend their money on. The Roman Catholic Church has an annual income of over 8 billion dollars untaxed from their stocks and shares, hotels, casinos and property, yet the state supports their schools and their "charities". The Anglicans and United enjoy untaxed incomes of over 2 billion dollars each untaxed from a very wide portfolio of assets, yet a year or so ago the Anglicans withdrew from some of their "charitable" work because the stock market plunged.
The only inference to be drawn is that religions only offer charity because it's a money spinner for them because they are never held to account.
Meanwhile excellent charities are under or simply not funded, although failure to do so places enormous costs down the line. An obvious example is the care of ex-prisoners after release from jail. Anyone who gives to a religious charity is supporting one of the great scams of all time. If Religious corporations paid their share of tax, that would be enough to do all the charitable work needed.

No funding for charities? About time.

And while you're at it, stop taking while you stop giving: fines-as-revenue, application fees, permits, licences, rates, tolls, stamp duties, sin taxes, registrations, blah, blah, blah.