Humanities desk
< October 29	<< Sep \| October \| Nov >>	Current desk >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

October 30

is pro bono work tax deductible as "in kind"?

in kind Posner-Wiki57 (talk) 07:41, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Talk to a tax adviser, we can't help you. --Viennese Waltz 07:51, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It depends entirely on the highly specific local laws, as interpreted and applied in the constituencies where you live and do business. Consult a competent local tax advisor. Cullen328 (talk) 07:03, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Westminster Abbey - "we're full"

I've found several oblique references that suggest that in the late 18th century, Westminster Abbey was declared to be too crowded for any more large monumemts, which was why Nelson and Wellington had their funerals at St Paul's Cathedral. Can anybody pin this down please? Alansplodge (talk) 13:30, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

According to the Abbey Nelson's "burial there, rather than at the Abbey, was due to a decision taken by Parliament in 1795 that monuments to heroes should be erected in the largely undecorated cathedral rather than Westminster Abbey which was full of monuments. DuncanHill (talk) 18:12, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that DuncanHill. A couple of hours of Google-bashing suggests that before the 1790s, the Dean and Chapter of St Paul's had opposed large monuments in the church (although not in the crypt), but were finally pressured by Parliament into accepting memorials for Robert Faulknor the younger and Thomas Dundas. Westminster Abbey was indeed crammed with monuments, but in 1806 space was found for William Pitt the younger's statue, which had to be installed over a doorway because there was nowhere else for it to go. Alansplodge (talk) 15:18, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rockefeller Republican counterparts

Are there right-wing counterparts to Rockefeller Republicans who were economically right but socially liberal in other parts of the world? Donmust90 Donmust90 (talk) 16:17, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

George Harrison was famously very liberal, but very financially conservative. You could argue that he was liberal because he came from a liberal upbringing and he had a lot of religious influences that promoted charity. But, his financial conservative views were forced by realizing he was paying in excess of 90% income tax. So, in the end, he strongly supported charities, social programs, and the like. However, he was staunchly opposed to liberal progressive taxes. Of course, you can nitpick any example. Did he ever feel more conservative about a non-tax issue? Surely he did. Did he ever feel that more taxes were necessary to support programs he supported? Surely he did. Overall, he was very charitable and supported the more liberal politicians (especially if they let his transcendental meditation party cozy up to them). He was also very anti-progressive tax, writing a popular song about it: "Taxman." I feel it is as good an example as any for a person saying, "I am very liberal and believe in social programs to maintain society, but I'm not going to be overtaxed just because I have more money." 97.82.165.112 (talk) 17:13, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The basis of (US style) right-wing economics is “free market good, regulation bad;” “Business will self-regulate; consumers beware;” and / or, “Fxxx You, I got mine, Jack!” The basis of (US style) social liberalism is “We should help those who are less able;” “The better-off should pay more to help the less well-off;” and / or “Eat the rich!” It takes a special kind of mind to blend the two concepts. DOR (ex-HK) (talk) 04:11, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Social liberalism" in a US context refers more to cultural issues (drugs, abortion, gay marriage, etc) than to economic regulation or tax policy. Until rather recently, the Libertarian Party was a reasonable fit for the general description in the question. What is changed is not the LP positions but the meaning of "socially liberal", which has taken an anti-individualistic turn with the rise of identity politics. --Trovatore (talk) 21:48, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What about "Tax the middle class to keep the sidewalks free from the begging poor but leave me, a job provider, alone"? --Lambiam 06:54, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mentioning George Harrison in the answer to a question about right wing political figures seems deeply unfair to me. Yes, he objected to the excessively confiscatory tax rates imposed on the very wealthy in the UK at that time, but that view was shared by countless other British pop stars and successful actors and entrepreneurs of that era. George Harrison was not a right winger. He was an exceptionally kind and compassionate person who went out of his way to help people in need. He was a liberal and a truly fine person. Cullen328 (talk) 07:21, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The ramifications of the tax regime at the time meant that some high earners (of which Harrison would have been one) sometimes had to pay more in tax in a particular year than they had actually earned. Some of this may have been due to less than scrupulous practices by their managers and accountants, but even without their being scammed, having from 1974 to pay up to 98% in taxes on income above a particular (admittedly high) threshold (see Taxation in the United Kingdom#Modern rules) seemed ultimately counterproductive. (It had reached 99.25% in WW2, but there was a war on). {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 46.65.231.103 (talk) 17:47, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I used George Harrison as an example because he is very liberal. I could pick just about any rich celebrity from any other country, but how many of them were as vocal as Harrison was about taxes? The question is asking about Rockefeller Republicans, who were very liberal in most areas of politics, but conservative when it comes to taxation and spending. Stating that Harrison was liberal does not exclude him from sharing views with a group of politicians were also very liberal. Rockefeller, for who the term in coined, was so liberal in social views that his extensive social work in New York through the 50s and 60s, paired with limitations on taxation and spending, was a major factor in New York City going broke by the end of his term as Governor of the state, requiring a Federal bail-out by 1975. Briefly, the idea that Republicans are right wing and Democrats are left wing didn't solidify until the end of the 1960s. For a good 100 years after the Civil Rights Act of 1866, the two parties were in flux with a mix of liberal and conservative members. Coincidentally, it was the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that appears, in hindsight, to have finalized the transition. 97.82.165.112 (talk) 12:12, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep your greedy hands off my porkbarrel! —Tamfang (talk) 21:59, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Donmust90: The key examples I can think of off the top of my head would be Red Tories in Canada and One Nation Conservatives in the UK. I will try to think of others from a non-Westminster context, but I hope that helps a little bit. Bkissin (talk) 18:49, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Arguably (at least according to Progressive conservatism), the Free Democratic Party (Germany) would also be an example. Leans more Euro-Liberal (i.e. free market conservative) economically, while being socially liberal. Also look at the Moderates (Liberal Party of Australia) (internal faction within the party). Bkissin (talk) 18:57, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]