Oh surprise, surprise, NZ Billionaire and Evil Willy Wonka – Nick Mowbray, (a man who has made his fortune selling plastic bullshit to children), has decided to wade into NZ Charities to have a bash, because what else do Billionaires do these days right?
His argument is so insidious because of his own personal wealth.
Who the fuck is a Billionaire to tell NZs hard working charities that they ‘get too much’.
His accusations are they are wasting billions when that’s just bullshit Alt-Right MAGA talking points.
Why shit on NZ Charities?
Who does he want t0 bash next?
Caregivers?
The disabled?
The poor?
Why should a plastic pimp have any influence on our Charities when he has such a jaded view of them?
Why is it impossible for Billionaires not to be arseholes?
So much privilege, so little class.
Rich arseholes lecturing the poor on how to be hungry while charging them for toys?
Nick is like Willy Wonka if Willy Wonka hated kids.
His Tariff pain couldn’t have happened to a nicer arsehole.
Nick makes being a New Zealander embarrassing.
Increasingly having independent opinion in a mainstream media environment which mostly echo one another has become more important than ever, so if you value having an independent voice – please donate here.
Dear me what a horrid, smug, mean man this Mowbray is? Totally devoid of human emotions, empathy, compassion or basic understanding that not everyone can be a millionaire! I agree that not all charities do a wonderful job and there should be an inquiry into some of them – let’s start with the churches. I know of some charities who have CEO’s on exorbitant salaries so they are the ones we need to avoid contributing to! However, there is no need for him to be so cruel and scathing, but I imagine he has never been in need in his life – and if so, he hasn’t learnt anything from it! He would be wise to put his brain into gear before he mouths off.
Interesting. It used to be that rich people hated the provision of taxpayer-funded benefits by the state, while talking up charity as the ‘solution’. Charity appealed to the rich for a few reasons: it gave them (not the state) control over how much money they gave up; it gave them control over who got the money and who didn’t, meaning they got to define the ‘worthy’; and it laundered their reputations. Today, when the New Year’s ‘honours’ are handed out, you will hear the expression “services to philanthropy” repeated many times.
But Mowbray’s comment suggests that the advanced guard of the wealthy may be moving beyond that old-fashioned pretense of ‘noblesse oblige’. Now they just want poor people to disappear and die. And more so if they are brown/black, as Musk’s destruction of USAID shows.
It’s possible that there are quite a few organisations fraudulently claiming to be charities because they want the tax-free status – and we should certainly be putting an end to that. But it won’t be the whole explanation. If Mowbray was able to read history correctly, he would see that the large number of charities in NZ is mostly a result of the decades-long refusal of NZ governments to operate an economy that functions in the interests of all their citizens – and as a result pockets of critical need are popping up everywhere and good people are trying to do something about it.
Society does need entrepreneurs, and many of them make genuine and valuable contributions. Whether that applies to Mowbray is another matter.
But society also depends just as much on teachers, engineers, doctors, mechanics, builders, dentists, social workers, plumbers, and ordinary workers of all kinds. These people should be able to devote themselves to their work and to serving the community without being punished simply because they are not entrepreneurs.
They should be able to focus on being good teachers, social workers, plumbers, or supermarket workers, and in return enjoy a reasonable standard of living — without the constant fear of losing their homes or being unable to put nutritious food on the table for their children. A society that values and supports such work produces better teachers, better carers, better tradespeople, and stronger, more stable communities.
This social infrastructure is precisely what people like Mowbray rely on to enjoy their wealth. Yet this is ignored by him. Instead, the implication seems to be that anyone who is not an “entrepreneur” deserves insecurity, precarity, and downward pressure on their lives. That is not dynamism or meritocracy — it is a demand that the majority live in permanent anxiety so a small minority can feel morally superior – that’s fucking serfdom.
I believe Willy Wanka is a more apt description.
Where are Mowbray’s factories where does he actually make his money China or Aotearoa
The guy is a straight up liar. Some of those 28000 charities will theoretically service same people at different times for different reasons, should they be required. Some of them are administration bodies, and don’t directly service anyone. You know, division of core business. I guess he missed that on Entrepreneurial Training Day. He makes it sound like hungry homeless folks are divided into groups of 190 people and living it up large. Straight up liar. If he ran any of his affairs with those kinds of figures, he’d be bankrupt inside 6 months. The arrogance to think people are stupid enough to believe his lies just because he has an enormous opinion of himself. Then again, Entrepreneur is just a wanky word for Profiteer of Passive Income Streams.