# data[].attributes.headline
Countries have evolved programs for the prevention of severe need, although the definition of an acceptable minimum standard of living is typically more generous in European countries than in, for example, the United States, and this is reflected in the higher share of public expenditure in those countries.

# data[].attributes.subject
Countries have evolved programs for the prevention of severe need, although the definition of an acceptable minimum standard of living is typically more generous in European countries than in, for example, the United States, and this is reflected in the higher share of public expenditure in those countries.

# data[].attributes.body
MACRO

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/334794/te-puea-marae-to-help-homeless-for-second-winter -  hehe

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.quora.com/What-are-examples-of-successful-systems-that-redistributed-wealth

# data[].attributes.body
the marae's that let homeless stay and sleep like te puea

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.cpag.org.nz/about-us/

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.listenmoneymatters.com/rich-vs-poor-mindset/

# data[].attributes.headline
Philanthropic couple to donate $100 million

# data[].attributes.subject
Philanthropic couple to donate $100 million

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
There are three things New Zealand's growing pool of mega-wealthy can do with their money, says Chris Liddell, the corporate high-flyer.

"You can give it all to your kids, which is great but, beyond a certain point, can be counter-productive.

"You can give it all to the Government, which can mean the same thing. Or you can give it all away."

Liddell, the New York-based ex-financial whiz at Microsoft and General Motors, is not yet so flush that money is flying out of his hands but he likes to give back - scholarships that he and his brother fund at his old school, Mt Albert Grammar, being one example.

But he's licking his lips at the prospect of distributing $100 million to major environmental and education initiatives in New Zealand, funded by a retired couple he advises.

We saw a real opportunity to do a very small number of projects which promise to make a significant difference by offering substantial grants. There's a lot of people with great ideas - we want to invest in what we describe as social entrepreneurs who are constrained by a lack of resources.

SHARE THIS QUOTE:

The Next Foundation, launched by Prime Minister John Key yesterday, is something of a departure in New Zealand's philanthropic landscape. Instead of sprinkling cash evenly across the spectrum of worthy causes, the foundation aims to pick winners in its two target areas and support a select few projects handsomely. And it won't necessarily be established players who benefit - anyone with a big idea but lacking the capital to make it happen can apply. "We saw a real opportunity to do a very small number of projects which promise to make a significant difference by offering substantial grants," Liddell told the Weekend Herald. "There's a lot of people with great ideas - we want to invest in what we describe as social entrepreneurs who are constrained by a lack of resources."

Liddell is doing the talking - not just because he will chair the foundation which, to a degree, is his brainchild.

The couple with the money value their privacy so highly they had to be dragged kicking and screaming to the high-brow launch at Auckland's Viaduct Events Centre. Neal and Annette Plowman, who live in Kerikeri, are best known for bankrolling the restoration of Rotoroa Island as a conservation gem in the Hauraki Gulf. But that multimillion-dollar project was under way for some years before the names of its benefactors were revealed.

For more than a decade, the Plowmans have quietly channelled their considerable wealth into a select bunch of education and conservation initiatives and beneficiaries - including the Auckland City Mission, Lifeline, the Auckland University business school and Abel Tasman National Park - often had no idea (at least in the early years) where the money was coming from. The establishment of the Next Foundation represents very much a "coming out" for the Plowmans.

"They are naturally very modest, very happy to be in the background and let the projects speak for themselves...they are totally genuine about their altruism: they feel fortunate to have grown up in New Zealand and want future generations to enjoy a similar upbringing."

SHARE THIS QUOTE:

Education and the environment are seen as touchstone areas where their wealth can be put to best use to safeguard, or enhance, that future. The Government can't do everything - as the Department of Conservation acknowledged last year with its restructuring to pursue commercial and community "partnerships". Similarly in education, the Government has welcomed private adjuncts to the state system, particularly experiments to boost student achievement in low decile areas.

It's a philosophy shared by Liddell and the close-knit band of high-achievers who advise the couple.

The same names crop up on the management boards that oversee their altruistic projects: besides Liddell they include retired Auckland accountant Barrie Brown, Wellington tax lawyer Geoff Harley, forest manager Devon McLean, who worked with Liddell at Carter Holt Harvey in the 1990s, and Carol Campbell of the Business Advisory Group.

Brown chairs the Rotoroa Island Trust and is a director of Project Janszoon, which works with DoC and community groups in Abel Tasman National Park to eradicate pests and weeds and restore habitats. He also chaired the Auckland City Mission Capital Foundation for 8 years. Harley chairs Project Janszoon (it's Abel Tasman's middle name) and is a director of the Rotoroa Island Trust. Liddell, too, sits on the Rotoroa and Project Janszoon boards. He is a former chairman of Project Crimson, which McLean now chairs. McLean directs Project Janszoon ...

Lest this sounds like a backslapping richlisters' club, they meet no more than annually - most work is done by email. And they have hard-headed expectations of "deliverable" results. They trust each other implicitly, says Brown, a former partner at PwC.

"The key to our projects is to use good people you can trust and know you can work with. We all bring a different skill."

He says the foundation will focus on education and environmental schemes "because that's where the Plowmans see the future of our country. We have to have well-educated people and our environment is why people come here. But unfortunately our forests are dying at the moment due to pests and weeds."

Most of their previous projects have set goals and deadlines. Project Janszoon, for example, will wind up in 2042, the 400th anniversary of Tasman's visit to New Zealand. The Next Foundation has a 10-year timeframe and a strategic, businesslike approach. Liddell, who left General Motors three years ago and now chairs Xero, the stellar-performing accounting software developer, devised the concept after researching philanthropic foundations in the US.

"We saw an opportunity to fill gaps which the Government and the private sector aren't filling," Liddell says.

"We debated making it a perpetual foundation but there was enthusiasm to get out there for up to 10 years and try to make a significant difference in a few areas.

"With all our projects we have taken a very structured approach with a specific set of deliverables and strong management which we have found very successful and we wanted to formalise that approach. For every dollar spent we want to maximise the return that we get, not in an economic sense but in social gains. There needs to be a tangible impact."

The foundation is expected to distribute $5m to $15m annually to no more than three projects. Criteria for education projects will include schemes that contribute to New Zealand's "long-term knowledge capital and performance", covering research, teaching, skills and values development, technology adaptation and/or innovation.

Environmental proposals must look to protect and sustain natural habitats and species through research and innovation, conservation and/or community participation. An advisory panel will shortlist applications for further development; the first projects could get the go ahead by the end of this year. Liddell hopes they will achieve long-term sustainability, with other benefactors swinging in behind.

"I believe we can multiply income if we take a disciplined approach.

"It's an opportunity to make a big impact and change New Zealand as we know it."

Liddell and Harley's association with the Plowmans dates from the 1980s, when they assisted in a buy-back of the old family firm, NZ Towel Service, which was publicly listed at the time of the 1987 sharemarket crash. An astute businessman, Neal Plowman took the commercial linen company in new directions before it was sold to American firm Steiner Corporation. There were subsequent ventures into multiplex cinemas, property investments and a director's seat with Waste Care.

Now in their 70s, the couple divide their time between Kerikeri and Noosa, Queensland. But their names don't feature on the NBR Rich List - their wealth is not conspicuous. "They are not proud people at all," Brown says.

"They just want to get on with things and they don't want any fanfare at all. Neal likes pitching in at Rotoroa and he plays golf with his mates at the Kerikeri Golf Club - they are not pretentious in any way.

"With the Auckland City Mission foundation, it was three years before I could tell the board where the money was coming from. It was the same with Rotoroa Island.

"They are passionate about New Zealand, the environment and education and they have the wherewithal to make a difference. It's no more complicated than that."

The couple gave a rare interview in late 2011 when the Herald shortlisted them for its New Zealander of the Year award for the gift of Rotoroa Island. Neal Plowman said he believed everyone with enough disposable income should invest in philanthropic activity.

"In the US, it's normal for businesses to put at least 10 per cent of their capital wealth into endowment funds for the future of everybody - not just their family or business."

Liddell says the group shares a vision about the potential for philanthropy in New Zealand. Research shows that though we give generously as individuals, and trusts and foundations support a vast range of social services, the business sector has room for improvement. Shining lights include the Todd Foundation and the Tindall Foundation, which distribute widely across the spectrum of community agencies.

"New Zealanders are very generous by nature but we don't have a strong or long history of institutional philanthropy.

"Our generation is probably the first where there's been a large number of people with high net wealth - following the opening up of the economy in the 1980s. New Zealanders are very generous individually but, to my mind, there's an opportunity for people who have the resources to adopt a more systematic approach and make a difference.

"I think it's important for one generation to leave a legacy for the next."

There's one other outcome expected from the foundation's focus on deliverables, says Brown. "It's something the Plowmans should hopefully see the benefits of in their lifetime."

Other philanthropic initiatives by Neal and Annette Plowman:

A 30-year project with Department of Conservation, Abel Tasman Birdsong Trust, iwi and community to control weeds and pests and restore habitats in Abel Tasman National Park. The Project Janszoon Trust aims to demonstrate the potential of a sustained restoration effort in one of our most accessible national parks, which attracts more than 150,000 visitors each year. Its goal is to restore the ecology of the park before the December 2042 celebration of the 400th anniversary of Abel Janszoon Tasman's visit to Golden Bay.

Rotoroa Island Trust

The Plowmans paid the Salvation Army up-front for a 99-year lease of the island, a former treatment centre for alcoholics. Their endowment is funding heritage building restoration, a visitor centre and planting of 400,000 native plants. A partnership with Auckland Zoo is introducing native birds and reptiles and providing conservation education for schools. The project is forecast to cost in excess of $40m.

Teach First NZ

Charitable trust that helps equip graduates and professionals to teach in schools in low-decile areas. In partnership with Auckland University, participants receive training and are placed in secondary schools for an initial two-year commitment, with the aim of inspiring young people to fulfil their potential. Based on a UK model, it aims to build a network of leaders committed to addressing educational inequality.

Auckland University Business School

A $10m endowment fund to support post-graduate scholarships and fellowships, research, teaching projects and visiting experts. Aims to help students become business leaders and entrepreneurs and ensure the school's international competitiveness. The Plowmans also gave $1.5m to establish a chair in entrepreneurship.

Auckland City Mission Capital Foundation.

Provides funding that helps to underwrite the mission's costs, allowing staff to concentrate on delivering help.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Philanthropic couple to donate $100 million

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
There are three things New Zealand's growing pool of mega-wealthy can do with their money, says Chris Liddell, the corporate high-flyer. "You can give it all to your kids, which is great but, beyond a certain point, can be counter-productive. "You can give it all to the Government, which can mean the same thing.

# data[].attributes.body
The top 1% can do much more in order for the citizens of NZ to be more equal then it is now. I feel that they are as capable to do things that can positively affect families or people in general in a positive way.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.entities[].name
Rich VS Poor Free Money Social Experiment

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.entities[].name
Asking Strangers For Food VS Asking The Homeless For Food !

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.entities[].name
Rich VS Poor Helping Hand Social Experiment

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In this "Social Experiment" I go up to Rich and Poor people and ask for donations for a local homeless shelter.

# data[].attributes.body
"Philanthropy has huge power. You're only limited by your willingness and your imagination."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Each year, individuals, trusts and charities give around $3 billion dollars to New Zealand causes.

Famous and not-so-famous wealthy individuals have generously given billions, established trusts, foundations, and charities.

However, based on the available figures, it's ordinary Kiwis who give the most to the philanthropic sector.

Kiwis don't really tip or boast about money but philanthropy has been - and continues to be - part of our DNA.
READ MORE:
* Who is the property magnate behind the $50m gift?
* Wellington gifted $50m children's hospital
* Millions left to Wellington SPCA
Each year, we give around $1.5bn in personal donations to charities and charitable organisations. Trusts and foundations, including the gaming industry and Lotto, give $1.2bn, and businesses give $77 million.

A report into philanthropy in 2014 said Kiwis have been giving generously for years.

Around 90 per cent of personal gifts were donations to charitable organisations.

Philanthropy New Zealand is the umbrella organisation for the charitable trust and foundation sector and its chief executive Tony Paine - whose last position was Red Cross New Zealand secretary general - said Kiwis were a generous lot.

After the Christchurch quake, people donated $130m. But, people could be reluctant to publicly admit being generous due to humility and a sense of embarrassment around wealth, Paine said.

"When I was CEO of the Red Cross we'd routinely raise several million.

"I think our culture is different here to America where it's much more high profile and you cannot visit a hospital or a university without finding a name on the wall.

"As a culture we're probably a bit more private. It's a rude question in New Zealand to ask how much someone earns.

"We like to think we gather round people and causes that we care about."

The single largest charitable organisation in the world is the Gates Foundation set up by Microsoft founder Bill Gates and wife Melinda. They have gifted tens of billions of dollars since founding the organisation in 1994.

With an annual giving total in the billions, New Zealand could consider itself generous, although Paine said he wouldn't die in a ditch over international comparisons.

New Zealand was ranked fourth most generous in a recent Charities Aid Foundation world " giving index", beaten by Australia, the United States, and Myanmar, a devoutly Buddhist country where giving is ingrained to support a monastic lifestyle.

Paine said it was difficult to measure generosity by comparing countries and it was also difficult to identify the source of the largest donations or gifts in New Zealand because so many were given anonymously.

The $2.7bn figure was reliable but in terms of the overall population there was no information on, for example, how many people donate each year.

There are about 27,000 registered charitable organisations in New Zealand.

"There's no data on the percentage of the population who make a donation each year. I think it would be a significant percentage given the amount of money and the number of organisations.

"There is a significant proportion of the adult population who find ways to give. Once again, it's about what you care about and things that have made an impression.

"Philanthropy has huge power. You're only limited by your willingness and your imagination."

Around 40,000 people banded together last year to buy Awaroa beach as part of the conservation estate in Abel Tasman National Park.

People reached deep into their pockets to help the Christchurch earthquake recovery effort in 2011 and, the level of giving by the public hasn't slowed down since then.
Who are among the most generous?
Some of the biggest givers - whether they are individuals, foundations, or old family trusts, are household names, such as Edmund Hillary, Warehouse founder Sir Stephen Tindall, Dame Rosie Horton, the Morgan family, and Sir Owen Glenn.

The largest overall donations to New Zealand charitable organisations include religious groups, aid agencies, and grant distributors.

In 2015, according to the Charities Service, World Vision NZ received the largest overall cumulative donations from the public - $71.7m.

The arts in Auckland received donations amounting to $59m, St John was donated $31m, and The Salvation Army's donation total was $29m.

Sir Owen Glenn's $7.5m donation to the University of Auckland was one of the largest given by an individual to an educational institute.

And now we have the $50m - one of the largest single-donor gifts in New Zealand philanthropy - by property developer Mark Dunajtschik to pay for and build a children's hospital for the Capital and Coast District Health Board.

The German-born philanthropist is no stranger to charitable deeds but he normally shies away from the limelight.

Sir Stephen Tindall's Tindall Foundation has donated more than $125m to help those less well off by focusing on the charitable sector, training and research.

Neal and Annette Plowman gifted $100 million to establish the Next Foundation, an education and environmental philanthropic trust

The Todd Foundation: a family-run community-focused organisation that has gifted around $60m over the years since it was founded.

The Morgan Foundation: Sam Morgan, TradeMe founder, sold the site to Fairfax in 2006, instantly acquiring a fortune. He established the Jasmine Trust, an organisation battling poverty and supporting entrepreneurship. His parents, Gareth and Joanne, started the Morgan Foundation, which focuses on the battle against the poverty gap and wealth disparity.

The Himalayan Trust: Sir Edmund Hillary was involved in philanthropic efforts from the moment he encountered the Sherpas in the Everest region. Hospitals, airports, water supplies and schools are its main focus and it's going strong more than 60 years since Hillary and Sherpa Tenzing Norgay reached the summit.

- Stuff

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
New Zealanders give generously - almost $3 billion a year - but rarely talk about it

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Each year, individuals, trusts and charities give around $3 billion dollars to New Zealand causes. Famous and not-so-famous wealthy individuals have generously given billions, established trusts, foundations, and charities. However, based on the available figures, it's ordinary Kiwis who give the most to the philanthropic sector.

# data[].attributes.body
- Non profit charities
- Subsidies
- Social Welfare
- Vouchers (food stamps)

# data[].attributes.body
an example of income redistribution would be charities and other things. i think a good way to use Income Redistribution is the 1% helping out the poor and not being rich gits.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Income inequality is dominating the economic news cycle at the moment with multiple stories about rising income inequality, the need to raise the minimum wage, and anecdotal stories designed to make the more fortunate feel sorry for the less so. There are, however, two big problems with this narrative. First, most of the income inequality stories are false. Second, once you admit that income redistribution is fair, there is no logical stopping point short of communism.

Starting with the income inequality debate, the main problem is that most stories are based on pre-tax and pre-transfer income. If you look at that data, yes, income inequality in the U.S. has gotten quite a bit worse under President Obama. Does that mean we should blame him for this? No. Because if you look at the income data after taxes and government transfers (that is, after all the income redistribution that we do), the picture is completely opposite.

When we analyze U.S. income data after taxes and after government transfer payments, we that inequality has actually dropped slightly since 1993. Using the data after all the income redistribution also shows much healthier growth in the average family's income, with a 62 percent gain after adjusting for inflation from 1979 to 2007 according to this CBO .

We certainly still have income inequality in America, but the current income redistribution programs are doing an excellent job of holding it in check. Instead of complaining, President Obama should take a bow; he can finally claim success on something.

Moving to the second issue, how is a society supposed to decide what is "fair" as far as income redistribution goes? This is a question both difficult and simple. Logic suggests that you can only defend two possible answers: we should do no income redistribution or we should redistribute income until such time as everybody is left with exactly the same amount of money (essentially communism). While almost everyone wants the answer to be somewhere in the middle, it makes no sense to stop there once you start.

The government today is essentially divided into two parts: one that provides services and another that redistributes income. The smaller part is the branch that provides services (national defense, parks, courts, museums, and interstate highways, to name a few). This makes up about 30 percent of federal government expenditures. The other 70 percent is transfer payments, which means programs where the government takes money from one person and transfers it to another. This includes Social Security and Medicare which would not be income redistribution programs if the government was actually paying out benefits to today's retirees using the money they paid in while working, but it is not. Today's beneficiaries are getting money taken from today's workers, so these two supposed insurance programs are really just two more in a long line of income redistribution programs that make up the bulk of what the federal government does.

If the majority of federal government expenditures are transfer payments-redistribution of income-then the important question which has been lacking from any meaningful political debate is how much income should be redistributed. We debate whether to extend emergency unemployment payments (welfare under a more palatable name), we debate the level of spending on food stamps, and we debate the merits of the free cell phone program the government runs, but we never get to the key question.

Raising the minimum wage is one of the top issues of the moment, yet the redistributive properties of such policies have been little discussed. Proponents like to believe it will redistribute money from rich business owners to poor low-wage workers. Yet some share of the minimum wage hike will be a redistribution of income from customers to the workers. Depending on the business, the customers may be just as poor as the workers. How much of the workers' gains would come from business owners and how much from customers is unknown and would vary on a business-by-business basis.

We have endlessly debated Obamacare, but almost exclusively in the context of whether it would function or the constitutionality of the insurance mandate. Obamacare represents another, enormous income redistribution program (this time from the rich, the young, and the healthy to the poor, the near-elderly, and the sickly). Yet, we have not spent much time debating whether more income redistribution is needed or is fair. So, having shown above that we appear to have sufficient income redistribution programs in place to have slightly lessened the income inequality in American society, let's talk about what is "fair."

One perfectly defendable position is that no income redistribution is fair because people have a right to their own property (of which your money is part). That does not mean that people should not pay taxes that go toward the general provision of the public goods like national defense and interstate highways, but, rather, that taxes beyond that are not appropriate. This is essentially a libertarian viewpoint and would result in a much smaller government and reliance on private charities for the social safety net.

A person holding this position could even believe that the taxes to fund the non-transfer government programs should be progressive. A progressive tax structure to pay for the government programs that do not redistribute money could be considered "fair" while taking money simply to give it to somebody else is simultaneously considered "unfair." Thus, the poor might pay no taxes, while the rich pay virtually the entire cost of this (smaller) government.

A second, defendable position is that income redistribution is fair because the marginal value of extra income is less for high earning or wealthy people than it is for the poor. Such a position is based on the philosophy of John Rawls, that social welfare is increased when the least well off among us is made better off. If you hold this position, though, why do we stop when one out of every six Americans is still officially living in poverty?

If the country's social welfare is increased by income redistribution, the logical conclusion is that it would be increased more if we kept on redistributing the income until everybody was left with the exact same amount of money. Otherwise, there are still people with more and those people will be getting less benefit from their money than a poorer person could if we would only redistribute it.

Thus, if you favor income redistribution, the optimal amount of income redistribution is to keep going all the way to communism, where we all get the same amount. Why do most people not support this? I think it is because when taken to the logical extreme, people feel it would be unfair to completely equalize incomes, perhaps even a little silly. They may also realize that people will not work hard (or at all) under such a system and we will all end up poor. Yet, that is the more defensible position.

To stop part way means that the government knows how much extra, unneeded income those rich people have. Government can tell just how much it can take away from the rich without hurting them too much. Government also apparently knows when it has helped the poor enough by giving them money and other benefits so that their gains from further redistribution are not sufficient to justify any more.

Clearly, these propositions are not true. Instead we have some sort of messy political and social compromise where we agree to empower our government to steal a reasonable amount of money from the rich in order to give to the poor. We strive not to be too harsh on the rich or too generous to the poor. This may be a democratic solution, but it is philosophically incoherent. It is like saying burglary is okay as long as the thief steals only the television while leaving the jewelry untouched.

Once you realize that the amount of income redistribution chosen is completely arbitrary, you might begin to see the ridiculousness of the policy. Government cannot justify taking from the rich and giving to the poor simply because it has the police power to do so. The justification gets even weaker when government only does it halfway. Pure libertarianism and pure communism at least make logical sense. Our current system falls short of everyone's ideals. It is a classic political compromise that makes nobody happy.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Income Redistribution's Logical Conclusion Is Communism

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Income inequality is dominating the economic news cycle at the moment with multiple stories about rising income inequality, the need to raise the minimum wage, and anecdotal stories designed to make the more fortunate feel sorry for the less so. There are, however, two big problems with this narrative.

# data[].attributes.body
Micro - donating a lot to charities
Meso - charities

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/12/15/u-s-lawmakers-are-redistributing-income-from-the-poor-to-the-rich-according-to-massive-new-study/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.db007601937d -hehe

# data[].attributes.body
Income Redistribution is an economic practice which is aimed at leveling the distribution of wealth or income in a society through a direct or indirect transfer of income from the rich to the poor. Economists or Governments adopt economic policies and strategies like progressive taxation to implement this phenomenon google.com

# data[].attributes.body
Just off of reading a few websites and hearing what we have gotten so far from the day a Meso effect or use of Income Redistribution, would be community fun raising or events like marches against rules that yes people out of the 'area' can come to help but it helps fund the community or to even the help people get to live. I believe like the bra fence to help people with breast cancer who get drained of money to live. A micro is getting personal donation or going about to make life better for your self, either begging or showing off talent, street perform. Macro thing that is happening media and it spreading the word about it, they show it and get popular people to show their opinion on it to help the young, Youtubers are a first option for most.

# data[].attributes.body
Macro:
Communism is a form of income redistribution that was used in the Union of Soviet States, the Peoples Republic of China, Vietnam, the German Democratic Republic, Poland, Venuzela and many other countrys. However it has never properly worked.
Reganomics, also known as trickle down economics  is an economic theory that advocates reducing taxes on businesses and the wealthy in society as a means to stimulate business investment in the short term and benefit society at large in the long term. this was tried during the presidential term of Ronal Regan in the US, however it did not work and since then income inequality has increased
Meso:
Charities are a form of income redistribution where people donate money and the charities helps people who can not afford the livable wage by giving them anything from food to accomidation.
Micro: