The post you are reporting:
GaryC - that is a good point and is associated with the whole hoo-rah over how much tax the wealthy pay.
The reasoning was that what some call loop-holes, tax reliefs that do not have limits placed on them, should be subject to limits such as those imposed on pensions. This is clearly a case of cutting off the nose to spite the face... It did reveal from the uproar from charities that many of the so called' elite greedy pigs' are not greedy pigs after all but very generous charitable donors. Perhaps what Osborne really wanted was to expose that but I suspect, as is so often the case, its a simple balls-up of knee jerk reactions to short-term headlines over the amount of tax being paid.
If there really is evidence that charitable giving, so called, is being abused through bogus charities then it should not be a difficult one to plug using the Charities Commission.
I have to say that this, of course, was not a limit on charitable giving as such, just a limit on the amount that attracts tax relief. Of course that would reduce overall the amount charities would receive as it comes out of nett income instead over £50k, but some wealthy people who give less than £50k may adopt that as a norm, so some might even end up increasing their giving... it is a strange old world though when you apply the law of unintended consequences.
