Skip to main content ↑ ↓
Recent Posts
11
The Sports Desk / Re: Formula 1
Last post by shawny -
Quote from: kruddler – on
People are going to lose the money one way or another.

IF its via tax, the government gets it and nobody cares.
IF its via donation, they look like good guys and get more opportunities to make more money.

So why would you not choose to donate it?


Incorrect. Its not equal and not equally lost either way. 

If LM earned 500M tax for arguments sake at lets say 50 cents in the dollar he is left with 250M (to spend on watches and Kim K)

If he donated lets say 100M as the donation would be fully tax deductible he now pays tax on 400M again for arguments sake at 50 cents in the dollar he is now left with $200M

So LM making the $100M donation left him with 50M less in his hand then if he didnt donate and paid hes tax.

ballpark if you are in the highest tax bracket for every $1 you donate your net loss is 50c for every dollar.

Im not a fan of LH but any donation of that sort of money is still very noble.
12
The Sports Desk / Re: Formula 1
Last post by dodge -
I think thats a different discussion and argument but given donations are capable of being tax deductible (the not for profit thing you mentioned is largely irrelevant) you may find an incentive exists for people to give more away, than pay it to the government for a net even or even greater result for themselves.

This is why it must be viewed with a cynical lens.  Philanthropy is easy when you have plenty and the levers suit you to pull them.


[/quote]

Dunno Thry, but 20+ years in the space might give me an idea or two.  Good philanthropy is very hard when you have plenty.  Philanthropy is readily available to everyone - and it does make a positive difference.
14
The Sports Desk / Re: Formula 1
Last post by kruddler -
People are going to lose the money one way or another.

IF its via tax, the government gets it and nobody cares.
IF its via donation, they look like good guys and get more opportunities to make more money.

So why would you not choose to donate it?
15
The Sports Desk / Re: Formula 1
Last post by Thryleon -
Quote from: dodge – on
How would NFPs that don't have DGR1 status survive in Australia if that was the case?

Don't have a view on Gates Foundation, except to say that generally, it is very hard to donate money properly and effectively if you have lot to give away.  Also the rules in US are different to ours...

Of course there are strategies to best manage donations, particularly from windfall events - which not only benefit to donor, but the NFPs as well as there becomes more to give away.

Sorry - won't hijack the thread any further.
I think thats a different discussion and argument but given donations are capable of being tax deductible (the not for profit thing you mentioned is largely irrelevant) you may find an incentive exists for people to give more away, than pay it to the government for a net even or even greater result for themselves.

This is why it must be viewed with a cynical lens.  Philanthropy is easy when you have plenty and the levers suit you to pull them.

18
The Sports Desk / Re: Formula 1
Last post by dodge -
How would NFPs that don't have DGR1 status survive in Australia if that was the case?

Don't have a view on Gates Foundation, except to say that generally, it is very hard to donate money properly and effectively if you have lot to give away.  Also the rules in US are different to ours...

Of course there are strategies to best manage donations, particularly from windfall events - which not only benefit to donor, but the NFPs as well as there becomes more to give away.

Sorry - won't hijack the thread any further.
20
Robert Heatley Stand / Re: AFL Rd 13 2026 Post Game Prognostications Carlton vs Essendon
Last post by bobby -
I don't do this normally but I since I was flummoxed has to how we won I had to look at the stats. It's been a week and a bit but I had to look.

The positive from the Essendon game was that it was an ugly win.

We has had marginally more disposals and less inside 50s
Efficiency was effectively the same
We were significantly better going into the F50
They won the frees
We were handed our trousers at stoppages
They smashed us for contested - we were better at uncontested
Marks overall were close, but they murdered us on contested
They were in front for almost 79 minutes. We didn't quite hit 30
We won defence

If there was winning ugly, this was it. (the Richmond win wasn't just ugly, it was borderline unworthy)

I'd have to look at our 'big loss' games in detail but Essendon's stats I suspect are like ours were. Big emphasis on contested possession at the expense of everything else. Can't have 18 blokes trying to be first  to the ball some need to be ready receive and run.

Our higher uncontested possessions and notably better inside
266 vs 242
45 vs 49  - we had less , but our delivery was better, and our better defence rendered theirs less effective.
 48.9% vs 38.8% - we had less but our efficiency was 25% better

It was tough to watch but the stats say we used the ball better when we had it and that coupled with winning defence was the the difference.