Welcome to Netrider ... Connecting Riders!

Interested in talking motorbikes with a terrific community of riders?
Signup (it's quick and free) to join the discussions and access the full suite of tools and information that Netrider has to offer.

WorldVision [fork from Announcements and News]

Discussion in 'The Pub' started by duncan_bayne, Jul 9, 2008.

  1. Just FYI, WorldVision are socialist 'wealth-redistributors' who think that your wealth means you're somehow responsible for footing someone else's medical bills (my emphasis):

    "These contributions are very important and positive, but more needs to be done. Even with recent increases the Australian Government is still not covering its fair share of the total HIV & AIDS aid costs given our country’s income."

    Furthermore, they're not exactly reluctant to spend your hard-earned donations on political lobbying, so don't think for a moment that your donations will go solely to help starving children (or whatever the cause du jour is).

    Don't get me wrong - I think charitable giving is a good idea. Just be aware that WorldVision (and many other similar charities) are lobbying for the Government to take your money by force and 'redistribute' it around Australia and the world.
  2. Edited to recover a resonant statement:

    Go and peddle your subversive counter-revolutionary bourgeoisie nonsense elsewhere. To paraphrase Johnson: "we refute it thus".
  3. Bollocks Duncan

    You gotta do better than that. What are your references for the nefarious WV motives?? Your link shows that WV spent $45k in lobbying this year. Where does it say it was about wealth redistribution? Last year WV had total revenues of about $360 million... and your whinging over $45k. :|

    Last years WV Australia's financial report is here: http://www.worldvision.com.au/aboutus/annualreport/files/2007_Financial_Statements.pdf

    My cursory glance shows that 16% of total revenues in the 2007 financial year went on overheads. They ran a deficit last year of about $10M to boot too. 16% Duncan. That's a great ratio!

    WV Newzealand tackle the topic here: http://www.worldvision.co.nz/aboutwvnz/where_your_money_goes.asp in their case 21% went on overheads.

    Yes, I do care to refute you. Of course money is needed by any organisation to allow it's stated goals to happen. 16 -20% sounds pretty reasonable.
  4. hahahah nice rob. short and sweet


    There are good arguments against WV, Duncan got none
  5. WV wants Australians to pay - compulsorily - a greater share of third-world HIV costs simply because Australians are richer (sorry I didn't include the link in my original post). This is a very straightforward example of 'wealth redistribution' (or theft, to put not to fine a spin on it).

    I have no objection to charities spending money on operating overheads; obviously this is part and parcel of any organisation. However lobbying costs are not operating overheads; they represent a charity directly spending donations in an attempt to influence politics. Don't conflate the two.
  6. unless the charity explicitly states it.
    actively pursues it as part of their mandate, and who's contribution is laughably outweighed by the drug companies actively trying to stop such 'wealth redistribution'. Perhaps the lobbying attempting to gain tax breaks for volunteering time to manage the systems, maybe its to get governments to talk to other governments, to facilitate distribution of wealth without foreign governmental "skimming"?

    Why are you trying to rain on peoples parade? People are obviously well informed enough to show up your ill-conceived arguments. People already know what you're telling them, the lobbying is part of why they give.
    You don't want to give to WV, neither do I, why shout it from the rooftops? why not just not give and feel happy about it?
  7. Awesome.

    I take it then that you will in fact take one of the last 5 spots.

    Australian's do charity stuff really well, I like to think we do here at Netrider.

    $26 a year is like 5 drinks at the pub that you are going to piss up against some stainless steel trough at the end of the night.

    People here get hurt, we help them out. People overseas need some help, we help them out.
  8. I prefer pretty much anything over the self righteous (and often inaccurate) wank that is put forth in favour of WV. For some reason it's frowned upon to tell those people to shut the f*ck up, bless their well meaning souls, so why don't we all just allow a bit of debate without being a retard about it?

    Edit: This post was directed at a particular post which has now been deleted.
  9. Because I'm pissed off about it. Every cent people give to WV is more money spent on lobbying to take my hard-earned money off me at gunpoint (or threat thereof).

    That's why charities like WV spend money on lobbying - because they're not content with voluntary donations, they want our money taken from us and spent the way they want it spent.

  10. Wealth redistribution is *not* theft. It's sensible taxation policy at work.

    Putting funding into disadvantaged communities in an appropriate manner reduces unrest, increases stability and provides an improved lifestyle for the areas concerned which has flow on beneficial effects.

    It is in our own best self interest to be doing so (as well as theirs)... that's win win in my book :p
  11. If I walked into your house and took your money (even to give to a charitable cause, and even if I thought it was in your best interests) that'd be theft.

    How does the morality of that action change just because it's sanctioned by the majority?

    That's your call to make - just as it's mine to make as well. Except that with compulsory taxation, I don't get any choice whatsoever. And WV wants more of it (wealth redistribution, that is).

  12. every tax dollar you pay goes back to pharmaceutical companies through medicare. These are the same companies that are overcharging on drugs by 1000s of %, the same companies that spend millions and millions on lobbying, and you want ot destroy the goodwill of Netriders charitable efforts over $45k worth of lobbying - something that netriders are already aware of?
  13. Sure you do. You have the choice not to earn any money.
  14. Sure. But when did it become moral to force people to help others, regardless of their own choice?

    Funnily enough I used to have a regular donation to UNICEF going until they started lobbying in New Zealand to criminalize corporal punishment (the whole Section 59 debate).

    I have to say though I do agree with some of WV's lobbying, e.g. to remove or at least reduce tariffs & subsidies in first world countries. It's weird how they can be quite supportive of rights in some areas (e.g. trade) and utterly disregard them in others (e.g. property rights). Can't have one without the other ...
  15. do you get as sensitive over payroll tax?
    political party promotion?

    i dont understand why you fly the flag, to attack an organisation that does a lot of good.
    to me, if they get money from our tax system to combat HIV/AIDS, good on them.
  16. That would prevent people burglarising my home, too.

    But my being wealthy doesn't excuse a burglar from stealing my property, just as it doesn't excuse compulsory taxation.
  17. [​IMG]

    Sometimes just get tired of continually reading shit coming the n00bs

    OP was/is talking garbage comparing the lobbying to receive more
    government funding to someone walking into your house & taking your
    shit [​IMG]
  18. You're right; I was being too generous with that comparison. Burglars are generally more honest about the process. You have some shit they want, and they take it, regardless of the fact you own it.

    Proponents of compulsory taxation go to extraordinary lengths to convince people that:

    - it's moral because the majority voted for it
    - it's moral because it's for your own good
    - it's moral because it's for the 'greater good'

    ... but fundamentally it falls down at the same hurdle: what is immoral for one person to do (take someone else's shit without their permission) is immoral regardless of how many people vote for it.
  19. please stop.

    You're embarrassing yourself
  20. That's not exactly a rejoinder. Care to address the points I raised?

    Edited to add: If I'm embarassing myself I'm in good company. Have a read of Taxation Is Robbery by Frank Chodorov. He makes the case more succinctly & eloquently than I could manage.

    Edited again: Also check out ISIL's Introduction to Liberty animation; it's easier going than Chodorov.