<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments for MacDoctor</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.macdoctor.co.nz/comments/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.macdoctor.co.nz</link>
	<description>Politics and Medicine: A Lethal Combination</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 20 May 2013 03:47:43 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.5.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Oil on Troubled Waters by Rod</title>
		<link>http://www.macdoctor.co.nz/2013/05/19/oil-on-troubled-waters/comment-page-1/#comment-20619</link>
		<dc:creator>Rod</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 20 May 2013 03:47:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.macdoctor.co.nz/?p=5105#comment-20619</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I second that!]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I second that!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Oil on Troubled Waters by JC</title>
		<link>http://www.macdoctor.co.nz/2013/05/19/oil-on-troubled-waters/comment-page-1/#comment-20596</link>
		<dc:creator>JC</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 19 May 2013 23:12:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.macdoctor.co.nz/?p=5105#comment-20596</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[And they are organising it on the taxpayer dime again, ie, their Parliamentary expenses.

This is getting eerily like the argument about those charities who use their tax free status to advocate their political causes instead of looking after the welfare of their members.

Parliament should really look at what the Greens are doing, and like removing tax exemption from Greenpeace etc, reduce Green Parliamentary funding.

JC

&#160;]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>And they are organising it on the taxpayer dime again, ie, their Parliamentary expenses.</p>
<p>This is getting eerily like the argument about those charities who use their tax free status to advocate their political causes instead of looking after the welfare of their members.</p>
<p>Parliament should really look at what the Greens are doing, and like removing tax exemption from Greenpeace etc, reduce Green Parliamentary funding.</p>
<p>JC</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Charity by ZenTiger</title>
		<link>http://www.macdoctor.co.nz/2013/05/09/charity-2/comment-page-1/#comment-19319</link>
		<dc:creator>ZenTiger</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 09 May 2013 21:02:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.macdoctor.co.nz/?p=5100#comment-19319</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I think Family First provide charitable services - advice and support over parents mistreated by the government after overly strict interpretations of the smacking law have been applied to them.  They then ask to use those stories to help advocate for better laws, but I think in that situation one can draw a distinction between advocacy and lobbying.

Either way, my main concern is that the law is inconsistent and murky enough to have the flexibility of applying it to some organizations and yet ignore others.  This sets groups up to be discriminated by the government for political purposes.  I&#039;d like a review to check that these determinations are even-handed.  It would also be worth a discussion on what is charitable, because I think Family First (and Greenpeace) may qualify given it has a broad range of worthy concerns.

Perhaps the key to this is also the donation model.

I don&#039;t view the donation rebate as being tax payer funded.  If I earn $100, the government takes 33 cents.  If I choose to donate that $100, the government gives me back the 33 cents it took from me.  However, I no longer have the $100 because I donated it for a charitable purpose.  What I have done, essentially, is pay a voluntary tax to help the community or the NZ society.  A donation is a kind of targeted tax, and it is not in the government&#039;s interest to tax that tax, especially if one believes charities can provide a better quality of service at a better rate than the government.  So no tax money has been lost or funded by other tax payers.

Equally, charities therefore need to operate as charities and not spend most of their donations funding some persons life stye (although income paid should be taxable under normal PAYE rules).  There is a case for the government to regulate charities to the extent that they can be proven to serve a charitable purpose.  Maybe Greenpeace and Family First don&#039;t qualify, and maybe they do.  It&#039;s worth considering.  However, while the government says they don&#039;t, I&#039;d like to know the decision isn&#039;t variable and political.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I think Family First provide charitable services &#8211; advice and support over parents mistreated by the government after overly strict interpretations of the smacking law have been applied to them.  They then ask to use those stories to help advocate for better laws, but I think in that situation one can draw a distinction between advocacy and lobbying.</p>
<p>Either way, my main concern is that the law is inconsistent and murky enough to have the flexibility of applying it to some organizations and yet ignore others.  This sets groups up to be discriminated by the government for political purposes.  I&#8217;d like a review to check that these determinations are even-handed.  It would also be worth a discussion on what is charitable, because I think Family First (and Greenpeace) may qualify given it has a broad range of worthy concerns.</p>
<p>Perhaps the key to this is also the donation model.</p>
<p>I don&#8217;t view the donation rebate as being tax payer funded.  If I earn $100, the government takes 33 cents.  If I choose to donate that $100, the government gives me back the 33 cents it took from me.  However, I no longer have the $100 because I donated it for a charitable purpose.  What I have done, essentially, is pay a voluntary tax to help the community or the NZ society.  A donation is a kind of targeted tax, and it is not in the government&#8217;s interest to tax that tax, especially if one believes charities can provide a better quality of service at a better rate than the government.  So no tax money has been lost or funded by other tax payers.</p>
<p>Equally, charities therefore need to operate as charities and not spend most of their donations funding some persons life stye (although income paid should be taxable under normal PAYE rules).  There is a case for the government to regulate charities to the extent that they can be proven to serve a charitable purpose.  Maybe Greenpeace and Family First don&#8217;t qualify, and maybe they do.  It&#8217;s worth considering.  However, while the government says they don&#8217;t, I&#8217;d like to know the decision isn&#8217;t variable and political.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Random Thought by Judge Holden</title>
		<link>http://www.macdoctor.co.nz/2013/05/02/random-thought/comment-page-1/#comment-19317</link>
		<dc:creator>Judge Holden</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 09 May 2013 19:40:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.macdoctor.co.nz/?p=5075#comment-19317</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[You can&#039;t tell me the difference between a light smack for &quot;corrective purposes&quot; whatever those are and a beating given with love.  Your reliance on semantics is telling.  Also your knowledge of the Crimes Act and three strikes is as woeful as your knowledge of coal-mining.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>You can&#8217;t tell me the difference between a light smack for &#8220;corrective purposes&#8221; whatever those are and a beating given with love.  Your reliance on semantics is telling.  Also your knowledge of the Crimes Act and three strikes is as woeful as your knowledge of coal-mining.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Charity by Chuck Bird</title>
		<link>http://www.macdoctor.co.nz/2013/05/09/charity-2/comment-page-1/#comment-19315</link>
		<dc:creator>Chuck Bird</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 09 May 2013 19:36:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.macdoctor.co.nz/?p=5100#comment-19315</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[It would be nice see the NZ AIDS Foundation lose their charity status as they do not anything effectively to reduce the incidence of HIV in New Zealand.  In fact the misinformation they put our particularly in regard the effectiveness of condoms is counter productive in that goal. The NZ AIDS Foundation spends lot of time advocating for many homosexual issues totally unrelated to HIV.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It would be nice see the NZ AIDS Foundation lose their charity status as they do not anything effectively to reduce the incidence of HIV in New Zealand.  In fact the misinformation they put our particularly in regard the effectiveness of condoms is counter productive in that goal. The NZ AIDS Foundation spends lot of time advocating for many homosexual issues totally unrelated to HIV.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
