Should 'charitable' tax deductions be curtailed or eliminated?

[Guns Guns Guns]

Maybe the not-so-altruistic truth is that many people do give to charity because they get something in return.






Since 1917, our tax code has allowed individuals who donate to charitable and certain other nonprofit organizations to receive a tax deduction for their gifts.




The deduction, for those who itemize, can be a great incentive for donations. However, it comes with a cost to the federal bottom line.






As we look for ways to reduce the amount of debt our government is taking on, many things we've come to expect may be put on the chopping block.




The Center on Philanthropy at Indiana University found that reducing the tax deduction would have a relatively small negative effect on itemized charitable giving. The center estimated that if the deduction cut had been in effect in 2006, which is the latest year for which data are available, total itemized charitable giving by households would have dropped 2.1 percent. Total itemized giving by the high-income households would have declined 4.8 percent, or a drop of $3.87 billion.






The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities came to a similar conclusion but went further by pointing out that a large portion of charitable giving derives from foundations, estates, and corporations and from individuals who do not itemize their contributions on their tax returns.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/19/AR2010111906507.html

 

[Good Luck]

Liberals just cant STAND the thought of all those unclaimed revenues. They won't be happy until everyone is paying in 100% and totally dependent on government for everything.

 

[apple0154]

Liberals just cant STAND the thought of all those unclaimed revenues. They won't be happy until everyone is paying in 100% and totally dependent on government for everything.

What Liberals can't stand is seeing some needy folks being unjustly prejudiced. The money (tax) that should be collected and available to any needy person regardless of race, creed, color, religion or group affiliation is forfeited encouraging people to give to organizations that specifically discriminate on the basis of those very things.

A donation to Feed the Children (http://www.feedthechildren.org) is not going to help a hungry adult any more than a donation to the American Cancer Society (http://www.cancer.org) is going to help ease the cost of looking after an Alzheimer's patient. A donation to Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center (http://www.bidmc.harvard.edu) is not going to help the children at St Jude Children's Research Hospital (http://www.stjude.org).

A donation to Girls Inc (http://www.girls-inc.org) is not going to help the boys at Father Flanagan's Boys' Home (http://www.girlsandboystown.org) anymore than a donation to the United Negro College Fund (http://www.uncf.org) is going to help those associated with Disabled American Veterans (http://www.dav.org) and while the Oregon Food Bank (http://www.oregonfoodbank.org) may be there for Wandering Bear should the need arise it won't do much for the American SPCA (http://www.aspca.org) should Rover or Spot require assistance.

Would a person in, say, Burnt Corn (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burnt_Corn,_Alabama) or Intercourse, Alabama (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intercourse,_Alabama) know whether it’s a child or an elderly lady in Deadhorse, Alaska (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deadhorse,_Alaska) who requires more help?

Does the single mom in Toad Suck, Arkansas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toad_Suck,_Arkansas) require help or the homeless man in Doghouse, California (http://travelingluck.com/North Amer...a/_5343436_Doghouse+Junction.html#local_map)?

Who do we help get off the street; the prostitute in Beaverlick, Kentucky (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beaverlick,_Kentucky) or the alcoholic in Cockeysville, Maryland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cockeysville,_Maryland)?

Only agencies run by the Federal Government can possibly co-ordinate such programs to ensure the needy are treated equally.

 

[tinfoil]

Only agencies run by the Federal Government can possibly co-ordinate such programs to ensure the needy are treated equally.

LOL

Eugenics, anyone?

 

[apple0154]

Only agencies run by the Federal Government can possibly co-ordinate such programs to ensure the needy are treated equally.

LOL

Eugenics, anyone?

Eugenics? Could you expound on that a bit?

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

What Liberals can't stand is seeing some needy folks being unjustly prejudiced. The money (tax) that should be collected and available to any needy person regardless of race, creed, color, religion or group affiliation is forfeited encouraging people to give to organizations that specifically discriminate on the basis of those very things.

....Only agencies run by the Federal Government can possibly co-ordinate such programs to ensure the needy are treated equally.

If you have ANY information on ANY American citizen who has been denied something on the basis of race, creed, color, or religion, there are about a dozen organizations with hundreds, if not thousands, of lawyers on retainer, committed to handing such cases (pro-bono) in Federal court. Each year, thousands of these cases are heard, some against your very own Federal government. Unfortunately, people still violate the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and it had to be dealt with through our legal system. It simply doesn't matter if Government is in charge or individual non-profit organizations are in charge, this will still be the case. There is no system which can guarantee that all people will always be treated fairly and equally, and pretending like that would be the case if we turned it all over to government, is totally laughable. Historically, the government has been one of the BIGGEST discriminators on the basis of race, creed, color and religion.

 

[Mr. Groan]

Does \(\(\(\/)/)/)/ pay taxes?

 

[apple0154]

If you have ANY information on ANY American citizen who has been denied something on the basis of race, creed, color, or religion, there are about a dozen organizations with hundreds, if not thousands, of lawyers on retainer, committed to handing such cases (pro-bono) in Federal court. Each year, thousands of these cases are heard, some against your very own Federal government. Unfortunately, people still violate the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and it had to be dealt with through our legal system. It simply doesn't matter if Government is in charge or individual non-profit organizations are in charge, this will still be the case. There is no system which can guarantee that all people will always be treated fairly and equally, and pretending like that would be the case if we turned it all over to government, is totally laughable. Historically, the government has been one of the BIGGEST discriminators on the basis of race, creed, color and religion.

I just listed a number of organizations in the post on which you're commenting. Every one of those organizations discriminate.

A donation to Girls Inc. will not be used to help a boy nor will a donation to the United Negro College Fund help a Caucasian nor will a donation given to the Oregon Food Bank help any needy person in New York City. Being charities the government does not collect taxes on the money donated so every American citizen not associated with those charities lose.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

I just listed a number of organizations in the post on which you're commenting. Every one of those organizations discriminate.

A donation to Girls Inc. will not be used to help a boy nor will a donation to the United Negro College Fund help a Caucasian nor will a donation given to the Oregon Food Bank help any needy person in New York City. Being charities the government does not collect taxes on the money donated so every American citizen not associated with those charities lose.

People "discriminate" every waking hour of every day in every choice they make, goofball! The government itself discriminates when it determines who needs help and who doesn't. There is no other way to make the decision without discriminating. Your idiotic viewpoint is, the money people donate to charity is really YOUR money, YOU are entitled to it, even though it belongs to them and they earned it. Because they didn't donate it to who you think is appropriate, the money was misspent, and you seek to 'right' that 'wrong.' You are a Socialist Communist, and America is rejecting Socialist Communism.

 

[Rationalist]

Does \(\(\(\/)/)/)/ pay taxes?

For one to pay taxes, they need a job. So the obvious answer is no.

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

It's illuminating to review the "responses" submitted by conservatives in this thread.

Not one addresses the issue in any substantive way.


If conservatives really want to reduce the deficit, why aren't they exploring all avenues instead of insisting that cutting spending (on government programs they don't like) is the only available option?

 

[RockX]

Robert Reich wrote an article a few years back something I agreed with him on , in dealing with charitable contributions and tax deductions.

http://articles.latimes.com/2007/oct/01/opinion/oe-reich1
http://articles.latimes.com/print/2007/oct/01/opinion/oe-reich1

Is Harvard really a charity?

October 01, 2007|Robert B. Reich | Robert B. Reich, author of "Supercapitalism: The Transformation of Business, Democracy, and Everyday Life," was secretary of Labor under President Clinton.

This year's charitable donations are expected to total more than $200 billion, a record. But a big portion of this impressive sum -- especially from the wealthy, who have the most to donate -- is going to culture palaces: to the operas, art museums, symphonies and theaters where the wealthy spend much of their leisure time. It's also being donated to the universities they attended and expect their children to attend, perhaps with the added inducement of knowing that these schools often practice a kind of affirmative action for "legacies."
I'm all in favor of supporting the arts and our universities, but let's face it: These aren't really charitable contributions. They're often investments in the lifestyles the wealthy already enjoy and want their children to have too. They're also investments in prestige -- especially if they result in the family name being engraved on the new wing of an art museum or symphony hall.

It's their business how they donate their money, of course. But not entirely. Charitable donations to just about any not-for-profit are deductible from income taxes. This year, for instance, the U.S. Treasury will be receiving about $40 billion less than it would if the tax code didn't allow for charitable deductions. (That's about the same amount the government now spends on Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, which is what remains of welfare.) Like all tax deductions, this gap has to be filled by other tax revenues or by spending cuts, or else it just adds to the deficit.
I see why a contribution to, say, the Salvation Army should be eligible for a charitable deduction. It helps the poor. But why, exactly, should a contribution to the already extraordinarily wealthy Guggenheim Museum or to Harvard University (which already has an endowment of more than $30 billion)?
Awhile ago, New York's Lincoln Center had a gala supported by the charitable contributions of hedge-fund industry leaders, some of whom take home $1 billion a year. I may be missing something, but this doesn't strike me as charity. Poor New Yorkers rarely attend concerts at Lincoln Center.
It turns out that only an estimated 10% of all charitable deductions are directed at the poor. So here's a modest proposal. At a time when the number of needy continues to rise, when government doesn't have the money to do what's necessary for them and when America's very rich are richer than ever, we should revise the tax code: Focus the charitable deduction on real charities.
If the donation goes to an institution or agency set up to help the poor, the donor gets a full deduction. If the donation goes somewhere else -- to an art palace, a university, a symphony or any other nonprofit -- the donor gets to deduct only half of the contribution.

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

I never thought I'd see such a reasoned, well-thought post from Webby.

The rest of the JPP conservative community has a new benchmark.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

I never thought I'd see such a reasoned, well-thought post from Webby.

The rest of the JPP conservative community has a new benchmark.

Well web, if you ever needed confirmation you've gone off the tracks, here it is!

Let me explain this to you, the one thing you can NEVER do, is agree with some point a liberal has made. I don't care how trivial or trite you may think it is, or how much you believe you can see their point, you simply can't entertain the arguments, or they will bury you. Reich's article cleverly speaks of tax-deductible donations to Harvard, but Harvard isn't the real target. It's also not galas at Lincoln Center, these are just visual props for the argument, to garner your sympathies and encourage you to see things their way. Once you are on board, they will roll out the real target, organized religion. The Liberal Left knows and understands, the Religious Right is a very powerful political force, and it is largely funded through tax-deductible contributions. Now, they know they can't get anywhere with the idea of stripping religious institutions of their 'npo' status, so they don't even go there, it's not mentioned once in Reich's article, or this pinhead in his OP. You see, once you've agreed with the principle and point about Harvard and Lincoln Center, then any objection you would have about religious organizations is just an unconstitutional bias which violates separation of church and state. Those objections are easily dispatched. The important thing is to get you on record as supporting the idea of killing off tax-deductible npos. ..........Watch THIS hand, pay no attention to the OTHER!

 

[Rationalist]

Ideally, we'd simply replace the current tax structure with a low, flat rate with no deductions. Since that isn't going to happen any time soon, I agree with the following statement:

If the donation goes to an institution or agency set up to help the poor, the donor gets a full deduction. If the donation goes somewhere else -- to an art palace, a university, a symphony or any other nonprofit -- the donor gets to deduct only half of the contribution.

 

[apple0154]

People "discriminate" every waking hour of every day in every choice they make, goofball! The government itself discriminates when it determines who needs help and who doesn't. There is no other way to make the decision without discriminating. Your idiotic viewpoint is, the money people donate to charity is really YOUR money, YOU are entitled to it, even though it belongs to them and they earned it. Because they didn't donate it to who you think is appropriate, the money was misspent, and you seek to 'right' that 'wrong.' You are a Socialist Communist, and America is rejecting Socialist Communism.

I'm not talking about the money people donate. I'm talking about the tax from the money people donate or, more specifically, the tax the government loses. Let people donate to whom ever they wish after they've paid their taxes to society.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Ideally, we'd simply replace the current tax structure with a low, flat rate with no deductions. Since that isn't going to happen any time soon, I agree with the following statement:

Or even better, the FAIR TAX! This eliminates ALL the class warfare bullshit, ALL the deductions and loopholes, ALL the wealth redistribution crap! It eliminates the IRS and income taxation itself! It's a permanent payroll tax holiday, it would generate trillions in spending and encourage new industry and jobs on a scale we've never imagined, because it would eliminate corporate taxes as well.

www.fairtax.org

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

Or even better, the FAIR TAX! This eliminates ALL the class warfare bullshit, ALL the deductions and loopholes, ALL the wealth redistribution crap! It eliminates the IRS and income taxation itself! It's a permanent payroll tax holiday, it would generate trillions in spending and encourage new industry and jobs on a scale we've never imagined, because it would eliminate corporate taxes as well. www.fairtax.org

LOL, Dixie apparently believes adding exclamation points makes his arguments more persuasive. Reminds me of a teen-age girl's emo outburst.


I wonder why someone who claims to oppose tax loopholes voted no in this poll.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

I'm not talking about the money people donate. I'm talking about the tax from the money people donate or, more specifically, the tax the government loses. Let people donate to whom ever they wish after they've paid their taxes to society.

If you have the fundamental belief that we are somehow obligated to pay our taxes to society, why do we have nearly 50% of America not paying any taxes at all? Isn't this a contradiction of your moral principle that we should all be obligated to pay in to society? I think what you revealed is very interesting, you believe it is the obligation of the 'haves' to provide for the 'have nots' and they should be forced to do so by government.

From each according to ability, to each according to need. ~Karl Marx

 

[Rune]

If you have the fundamental belief that we are somehow obligated to pay our taxes to society, why do we have nearly 50% of America not paying any taxes at all? Isn't this a contradiction of your moral principle that we should all be obligated to pay in to society? I think what you revealed is very interesting, you believe it is the obligation of the 'haves' to provide for the 'have nots' and they should be forced to do so by government.

From each according to ability, to each according to need. ~Karl Marx

Bullshit. They aren't paying income tax, but they are paying lots of other taxes.