Connect with like-minded education professionals and have your say on the issues that matter to you.
Don't forget to look at the how to guide.
Discussion in 'Personal' started by peakster, Apr 15, 2019.
As in Boston, Mass.
I'm sure you're right, Nelly, but I didnt take you for a prig.
It's remarkable how much tax the wealthy can find to pay when there's a chance of having their name recorded for posterity compared to how little they intend to pay during the time their peers knew them as the sort of scum that avoids paying their tax dues.
Why not clear it out and then build a big, glass 'greenhouse' around the ruin?
Apparently they are asking for tax relief from the donations ensuring that it will be the taxpayer who is actually putting up the money.
Tax relief is normal on such donations and is not 100%.
Tax relief doesn't require someone else to pay. It is a reduction in the donors' tax bill.
I haven't read this whole thread and I'm sure lots of folk have strong views on rebuilding/tax exemption, etc. I just look at that beautiful building and feel so sad. I remember the first time I visited the cathedral - we queued for over an hour, eating chocolate crepes from a street stall. It was a hot August and a real holiday mood. When we eventually went inside, I was just overwhelmed by the peace, tranquillity and history. I thought - and still think - that the Rose window is the most beautiful I've every seen. So sad.
Isn't Gift Aid (like at National Trust properties) tax relief? And ISAs?
Similar although gift aid is only at basic rate and is paid from already collected tax individuals' tax paid is unaltered.
Companies do get tax relief on charitable donations.
I don't have a problem with people/organisations getting tax relief on money they give away (to charities)
Visited a long time ago. Glad I did.......
So Macron says the ‘ rebuild ‘ / restoration ? will be ‘more beautiful’ than before. I am hoping there has been something lost in translation here or he is kind of totally missing the point ?
He's a politician taking advantage of a situation to promise hope for a better future. A promise that might win votes.
Ahh who knew ?
It's just a building and will be rebuilt. Be nice if all these donors did something to help people suffering throughout the world instead.
I suspect it will take more like 50 years to rebuild.
No problems with tax relief on donations of course but 90% – cf my post #108 – is a bit steep. 66% is currently the maximum in France for such donations (with a ceiling of 20% of your taxable income).
The snag here to is that this proposal, as I wrote, comes from former minister J-J Aillagon who now works for the Pinault family (the multi-billionaires who’ve offered to give €100 million).
Obvious conflict of interest here of course. And those very wealthy people already benefit from many tax loopholes.
Now, we await with great interest a generous donation from The Vatican, they are said to have a few bob... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wealthiest_organizations#Religious_organizations
I expect it will be all put back nicely but that the rib vaults will be a swine to support. If the money that will be consumed by the project should be better used? Providing urgent aid to those in need across the world? Probably would be a better thing to do.
It no longer serves its original purpose though. They call it the heart of France, a national treasure, a symbol of the nation.... major tourist attraction and museum. The original builders would have just rebuilt, saving what they could, but demolishing the rest and building something better in the latest fashion. It happened all the time. Otherwise we would have inherited wattle and daub churches with thatched roofs.
What would happen if the Houses of Parliament burnt down?
Vatican are sending a Health and Safety Action Plan - (and a lorry load of fire extinguishers.)
Questions are starting to be asked sotto voce about Health & Safety at Notre-Dame... While Le Louvre has an on-site fire brigade 24/7 for instance (this article describes the role of the 46 firefighters there), so does the National Library (69 firefighters), the Orsay Museum too (15 firefighters), the National Archives etc. (http://www.culture.gouv.fr/Thematiq...t/Les-acteurs/Detachement-de-sapeurs-pompiers - in pidgin English here), we learn with dismay that despite Notre-Dame undergoing substantial renovation work (mainly the steeple) that started last summer and was due to last for 15-20 years and cost £150 million, incredibly it had no firefighters on site.
Nantes cathedral burned down in 1972 during renovation work, soldiering work/blowtorch job that went wrong. And again in Nantes in 2015, this time it was the local basilica, same causes, work done by welders, the blaze destroyed most of the roof (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jun/15/fire-ravages-cathedral-in-nantes-basilique-st-donatien).
In 2013, a beautiful 17th century mansion bought by a Qatari family for €80 million in 2007 burned down 500 yards away from Notre-Dame, on the island behind ND (the Île Saint-Louis) during renovation work in the roof voids, a tinderbox of a place. (Paris mansion Hotel Lambert seriously damaged by fire).
Given the very similar nature of the work being done at Notre-Dame, you’d think they would have had a few firefighters on site, but nope.
I can’t believe the people who authorised the work to go ahead (the Centre des Monuments Nationaux?) didn’t think of that and assess risks better, it’s not like there hasn’t been any precedent F.FS. Crikey, if we did our risk assessments so casually in teaching, we’d be hanged, drawn and quartered. It makes little sense.
I gather there was a 23-minute period after the fire alarm first sounded, during which cathedral officials could not find any sign of a fire. Not surprising as it was in the roof, but I did think that a modern alarm system should show which sensor(s) had been triggered. I guess all will be revealed by the investigators.