Cutting deductions for Charitable Deductions

[Cancel3]

Does anyone think this is a good idea?

I understand that it will only effect those making over $250k a year. And I understand that it is a reduction, not an elimination of the deductions.

I have read people saying "They should give regardless of the tax breaks", and that sounds sweet. But the truth is that the tax break encourage donations.

In tough economic times the donations go down anyway.

I think this is a major mistake.

 

[Chapdog]

Govt would rather take the tax money to be an intermediary so they can line there greedy pockets rather then allow the tax payers to give money to effective charities.

 

[uscitizen]

It will not deter those who give to the needy for the right reasons.

 

[Canceled2]

Does anyone think this is a good idea?

I understand that it will only effect those making over $250k a year. And I understand that it is a reduction, not an elimination of the deductions.

I have read people saying "They should give regardless of the tax breaks", and that sounds sweet. But the truth is that the tax break encourage donations.

In tough economic times the donations go down anyway.

I think this is a major mistake.

No, and here's why.
<snip> The tax increase would reduce the tax break on a charitable donation of $1000 from the current $350 to $280, a 20% decrease in the benefit. That figure will increase even more in 2010, when the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 are set to expire. The Obama Administration plans to allow the top tax brackets go up to 39.6 percent, further reducing the value of the deduction for giving. Throw in the president's identical proposal to reduce the value of the mortgage interest deduction for top bracket tax filers, and the combined tax increases could cause a substantial decrease in charitable giving among the well off. Since the wealthy give more to charity proportionally than any other income group, the less fortunate could see a reduction in services as a result of cut backs at charities from the resulting decrease in donations. <snip>

<snip> You left out the reduction in value on the deduction for state and local taxes as well. This tax increase on the wealthy is not just a 4.6% jump in marginal taxes(actually 6.6% for couples at $250k-$357k and singles at $200k-$357k), it can be much more substantial depending on the income level and deductions.
I love it when Obama and others talk about the wealthy paying their fair share. I am trying to figure out how one person can pay 0% in taxes and another almost 40% of their income in taxes and that is considered fair. They both drive on the same roads, they both have the same Medicare coverage, etc. Fair would be a flat tax not a progressive one like we have had forever. Obama just wants to make it a little more progressive all in the name of fairness. Truth is, its not even close. <snip>

 

[leaningright]

I agree with Sol....I don't think it is a good idea. Charitable donations are bound to go down anyway and without any tax incentive they are sure to go down....thus fewer charities receiving funds.

I also agree with uscitizen that those who give for the right reasons will continue to give but I don't think that is the thrust of Sol's post. The bottom line is that in these tough economic times less money will be given and without incentives like tax breaks EVEN less will be given and so charities will have fewer funds with which to operate.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Does anyone think this is a good idea?

I understand that it will only effect those making over $250k a year. And I understand that it is a reduction, not an elimination of the deductions.

I have read people saying "They should give regardless of the tax breaks", and that sounds sweet. But the truth is that the tax break encourage donations.

In tough economic times the donations go down anyway.

I think this is a major mistake.

Agreed, in times where so many people are in need, creating a disincentive towards charitable contributions is a dumb idea.

 

[Bonestorm]

Agreed, in times where so many people are in need, creating a disincentive towards charitable contributions is a dumb idea.

It actually creates a short-term incentive for charitable donations but, yes, a long-term disincentive.

Having said that, I'm not swayed by the folks that complain about this and at the same time propose to repeal the estate tax. It's not charities that are their concern at all but the ability of rich people to pay less in taxes.

 

[cawacko]

It actually creates a short-term incentive for charitable donations but, yes, a long-term disincentive.

Having said that, I'm not swayed by the folks that complain about this and at the same time propose to repeal the estate tax. It's not charities that are their concern at all but the ability of rich people to pay less in taxes.

It goes back to the basic belief that government knows how to spend your money better.

 

[Bonestorm]

It goes back to the basic belief that government knows how to spend your money better.

What goes back to the basic belief that government know how to spend your money better and who holds that belief?

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

It actually creates a short-term incentive for charitable donations but, yes, a long-term disincentive.

Having said that, I'm not swayed by the folks that complain about this and at the same time propose to repeal the estate tax. It's not charities that are their concern at all but the ability of rich people to pay less in taxes.

I tell you what... if you get the Kennedy's/Rothchilds and all the other 'old money' in the northeast to subject their estates to the estate tax rules, then I could tolerate it. But the blatant double standard of preaching to keep the estate tax while not being subject to it is bullshit.

Bottom line, you are already taxing people on the earnings from their investments and income. To tax them again upon their death is bullshit. If they have any unrealized gains at the time, then fine... tax that. But taxing the entire amount (minus the allowance) is bogus.

 

[cawacko]

What goes back to the basic belief that government know how to spend your money better and who holds that belief?

My quick answer on your estate tax example the belief that the person who earned his money throughout his lifetime while paying taxes on it must pay half of it to the government upon death as opposed to being able to distribute as he wishes is a prime example.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

My quick answer on your estate tax example the belief that the person who earned his money throughout his lifetime while paying taxes on it must pay half of it to the government upon death as opposed to being able to distribute as he wishes is a prime example.

Or he must give half of it for the improvement of society rather than give all of it to his rich snob who will live off of it for their whole life and contribute nothing to society.

I can play the connotation game too!

 

[leaningright]

The estate tax will never affect me. I don't think it is fair though.

 

[cawacko]

Or he must give half of it for the improvement of society rather than give all of it to his rich snob who will live off of it for their whole life and contribute nothing to society.

I can play the connotation game too!

that's not very good trolling WM.

 

[Cancel3]

It will not deter those who give to the needy for the right reasons.

Of course not. But it will deter plenty from donating and seriously harm the charities.

 

[cawacko]

Of course not. But it will deter plenty from donating and seriously harm the charities.

what a croc of shit "for the right reasons". Doesn't matter if you donate to a cause because you like the cause or it gives you a tax break the money still goes to help that cause. Charities don't seperate out money by "good money" and "selfish money".