The first of the article says that congress is under pressure to cut costs - so
what do they do instead? Increase taxes!! Making people pay more taxes has
nothing to do with cutting costs.
Cutting deductibles for charity is the best way I know of to get people and
companies to stop donating money to worthy causes. Obama is wrong. I would say
more, but I refuse to be uncivil.
Everyone wants tax cuts, no one wants to pay for the government services they
use. The leadership is vilified if they propose changes to the tax structure.
I agree with one comment in this story, that most with money will not donate to
charity if they don't get a tax benefit. I believe that we should
have a simplified tax code based on net cash available rather than income taxes
or sales taxes. It would be counter-productive to reduce or eliminate the
mortgage, education, and charity deductions. These three are of the most
benefit to the middle class. But there could be changes, with no mortgage
deduction for second homes or after a set amount of home value for primary
residences. Charity deductions should be carefully monitored for legitimacy.
Minor tweaks would make the system better.
The government knows how to spend your money better than you do.
Cut out all deductions to charitable organizations, including churches. I
completely support this concept. The government needs to get out of the
business of favoring certain organizations. If Americans stop giving, then let
us pray the price. But don't hold a carrot in front of us to get us to give.
Cut the tax credit for children. Having children is a personal choice. One
doesn't need a reward for procreation.
This will only create more dependancy on the government, which as we all know,
is inefficient, wasteful, corrupted and misguided. Let's eliminate Obama in 2012
instead of limiting charitable deductions! Much better idea!
One more example of Obama missing the point and doing the completely incorrect
thing. This would end most charitable giving in the US and would have terrible
results. Think of all the food pantries, the goodwill stores, the medical aid
groups, all would go without and the poor, the truly needy, would be hurt yet
again. Obama has no idea what he's doing and is merely grasping at straws at
this point. How very disappointing.
re:KamiHey Kami, do you trust the Federal govt to redistribute your
money to the right places? How about Obama funneling huge amounts of money to
BIG UNIONS and so-called green energy companies that are now bankrupt? Yes let's
not provide any incentives to give to charities - let those darn charities dry
up for all we care ... right? Let's let Obama and his cronies funnel our money
to corrupt unions and other "needy" organizations. Kami, you would
love Cuba and Venezuela - their BIG BROTHER government gets to decide where your
money goes and not you. Geez, education yourself Kami!!!
"Others argue, though, that the money might be better spent in the hands of
the government."This is laughable. I would rather give my money
to ANY non-profit (a church, Red Cross, United Way, etc.) than to the federal
govt. who I KNOW will squander it.Obama is killing our economy, and
this is one more step in that direction. You can't force people to be charitable
(Occupy Wall Street, etc.), and now they want to make it harder for us to give.
Kami,What do you believe the purpose of government is, if not to
encourage the behavior that is seen by the majority of its citizens as
beneficial to society? Can I assume that if you're against the government
encouraging people to act charitably, you are similarly against the government
encouraging people and companies to act responsibly towards the planet with its
EPA regulations or encouraging Wall Street investors to act responsibly with
There is a great deal of discussion about this, but one thing I'd like to see
explored is the relative overhead cost as a percentage of the
"donated" amount, including Federal welfare services.I
seem to remember seeing a chart addressing this a long time ago, that showed
what percentage of donated funds actually went to the people served by the
charity. Some good ones actually use 90% or better directly in assistance, with
less than 10% going to overhead costs. I'd like to see how much overhead there
is associated with Federal programs supporting the needy.Another
item I'd like to address is the economist's comment (Uwe Reinhardt) on page 3.
He says $4500 of a $10,000 donation is actually government money. He's
essentially saying that the only money that is yours is the amount the
government decides to let you keep. I'm sorry, but that is backwards. The
money I earn is all mine. I pay a certain amount in taxes, and it is only the
government's money after I pay it.Washington needs to learn this
Does it really make sense for the government to cut charitable donation
deductions? Let's think about this for a few minutes.The article
said that the amount of tax revenue lost over a 5 year period of time was 187.5
Billion dollars. Although the tax deduction for anyone donating to charity will
range from 0% to 35%, and although the most wealthy donate a larger percentage
of their income to charity, let's say that the deduction received amounts to an
average of 30%. That means that the $187.5 Billion lost to the government
because of tax deduction was the result of $625 Billion in donations over that
same period of time. This is very conservative, as a 25% average deduction would
show $750 Billion in donations. Let's say half of this 625 Billion went to help
the poor (again conservative. It was actually a much higher percentage). That
means that the poor among us received $312.5 Billion in benefit from charitable
organizations over 5 years, which cost the Government just $187.5 Billion in
taxes. What President would be dumb enough to mess with that? He's received an
extra $125 Billion to help the poor!
To put this in simple terms. We cannot decide what charities we donate to. We
should pay the money to the government instead so that they can use our money to
help those they want to help.The money that is given to legitimate
charities to help those in need goes so much further than any money given to the
government. We should be encouraged to give more money freely to charities,
thus taking the burden away from government. In my opinion, Obama could not be
Moderate, I could not agree more. I get so frustrated in this state when people
start to complain about the lack of money for schools. People need to realize
that income tax is the major money source for education in this state, yet those
who are using the system pay nothing into it. I always hope every election year
that one candidate will run on this platform, however I do not think there is
anybody out there willing to sacrifice their political career to say what needs
to be said or do what needs to be done. If we would limit the amount of
deductions to 2 on every return, then you would see fair taxation. Anybody with
school age children who receives a tax refund check from the state is robbing
their childs ability for a better education, they need to put their money where
their mouths are and return that money to the schools.
screenname | 10:44 a.m. Oct. 18, 2011 Salt Lake City, UT Kami,"What do you believe the purpose of government is, if not to
encourage the behavior that is seen by the majority of its citizens as
beneficial to society? "screenmame: the purpose of government
should never be to favor certain organizations. The purpose of government
should never be to indirectly force its citizenry to support certain
organizations, which is exactly what it is doing by giving a tax donation for
charitable giving. Every dollar that I would get back if I deducted chariable
giving (I don't take the deduction) is a dollar that the rest of the country is
paying. Now do you think it is fair that your neighbor should have to give to
the gov't pot to support YOUR charities?
@ patriot, I feel sorry for you if your charitable giving is conditioned on
receiving a tax deduction.
The best course is to eliminate Obama via the 2012 election. His policies are
designed to transform America. It is not that he does not understand; he is
doing this on purpose. People who think he is naive and misinformed need to wake
up and pay attention. He knows what he is doing, and it is not good for the
Yet another example of "change we can believe in" I suppose.
This is rich! During the campaign, Sen. Obama encouraged people to give more.
Now, Pres. Obama is encouraging people to give less. ?????
how about Obama start cutting non-essential government jobs that have stolen
billions of dollars from taxpayers. And how about Obama stop spending tax
dollars on his campaign to get re-elected, and how about Michelle Obama stop
spending tax dollars on her vacations? That would be a good start, but to start
taking money from charitable donations is a horrible way to pay for an inflated
government and their frivolous spending.
informedYou hit the nail on the head. Obama is simply trying to get
as many people as possible more dependent on government, then the votes will
never stop and the power will never end.
Republicans accuse Democrats of being charitable with other people's money but
isn't tax deductions for charity donations literally being charitable with other
So how is it that a hate crimes law would equal "special treatment"
for those it protects, but we can have tax laws that provide special treatment
to churches? If a person wants to give to a charity that's great, but if the
only reason you are giving is for the tax deduction wewhat does that REALLY say
about you and your donation? If you only give because you get in return, is it
Obama is asking us to trust him with more of our money. The only result I see
from this is increased dependency on the government and more power for
politicians. We are giving up our freedom for promises from the government. I
for one trust myself more than I trust politicians.
Pres. Obama is a mere child in understanding how the economy of a free society
works...or, he is very keenly understanding of it, and seeks actively to destroy
it...either way, a strong and free America is under attack from within!Mitt is the only sane choice. We have at times an insane and really dumb
media that is looking for stories, but oblivious to the damage they do, and the
dereliction of duty to press for freedom, economic solvency, patriotism.
Everything needs to be on the table, everything. Not everything needs to be hit
with a change, but due diligence should include thoughtfull consideration of all
expenses, not just the ones that don't impact me personally. Why
this has become a partisan topic again, who knows. If a
"conservative" were to be doing a review of all deductions, would this
be a problem? Would this be yet another attempt a redistribution of wealth?
This anit-everything really is silly and shows a lack of depth. You can not
honestly say you have done all you can to fix the problem unless you are willing
to look at ALL the options. Anything short of that is just more mindless
partisan talking points.. not a serious attempt at a solution.
Fundamental truth: conservatives hate gov't handouts unless they're the ones
getting them (and these tax deductions are most certainly gov't handouts).
it seems to me that kami and biden are the two biggest philathropists in the
country. Just keep giving that money away and let the government dictate where
all monies flow. btw, look up how much our generous VP donated to charities over
the last 10 years. Google joe Biden's tax returns. He certainly won't miss the
discontinuance of the deduction.
All one needs to do is look to Michele Obama and how she spends tax dollars for
her vacations and boondoggles - she's as bad as most other government agencies
and officials - why would we want to let them spend MORE by increasing taxes. I
have friends who work for the IRS and talk about wasting money - anyone working
in government can tell you if they are honest of the waste, fraud, corruption
that happens which as a percentage is ALWAYS higher then commercial and
non-profit organizations. The government in NO way can out perform private and
charitable giving. Just a bad idea giving more to the government.
Another case of "don't touch mine""we need to
simplify the tax code"But, don't touch any of my deductions.Lets talk fairness.2 families.Family one - Makes
$75K per year, one kid, $200K house. Family two - Makes $75K per
year, 6 kids, $200K house, tithes 10% on gross. Anyone want to
venture a guess as to how much LESS in federal and state taxes Family 2 pays
than Family 1?Anyone want to venture a guess as to how much MORE in
federal and state services family 2 gets compared to Family 1?Now, I
do understand that charity does help the community as does educated children. I
am just using this example to emphasize a point.But, it is hard to
justify that, based on personal choices, Family 2 should pay significantly less
than Family 1 while using Considerably more resources.Hence, the
talk of simplifying the tax code.How is that not fairer? What am I
Obama and his socialist buddies want us to pay more taxes so they can line their
pockets. A good example of government waste is FEMA. No matter what they do to
tax chartable contributions it won't effect my tithing because that is part of a
God given request and promise.
This is a strong contender for the dumbest idea the President ever had. It will
work against causes he is on record of supporting. Ugh.
atl134 says: '..isn't tax deductions for charity donations literally being
charitable with other people's money?' Answer: No. My money is my money. I pay
taxes, I donate to charity. It was never your money. You didn't earn it. It's my
money, I earned it, and I decide where it goes (except for Government taxation).
Therefore, I'm not being charitable with other people's money.cymrul
says: 'If you only give because you get in return, is it REALLY giving?' Answer:
Yes, it is. If I earn 5M next year and I need to keep 1M to live, the other 4M
will go somewhere - the Govt, my bank account, charity, etc. Let's say the Govt
will take 40% in taxes. If I want to give all the rest to charity, but I don't
get a charitable deduction, I'll only be able to give 2M to charity (2M in
taxes, 1M in living expense, 2M to charity). If it's deductible, I'll be able to
give 3.6M to charity (400,00 in taxes, 1M in living expenses, 3.6M to charity).
If no deduction is given for Charitable contributions, the result will be less
charitable giving, since I have less.
The bottom-line question is this:Do we believe that the government
can do a better, more efficient job of caring for the poor than the charities
who currently do so?If the government can, then it would be
worthwhile to direct more resources on the government's services. If the
government cannot, then it makes little sense to focus resources on an
inefficient means of helping the needy.When I see the government's
ability to deal with crises like Hurricane Katrina, and compare that to the
ability of charitable organizations to help out, I am fairly certain of where
the resources will be best used.
GUESS WHAT, charities, churches don't help out the homeless, the elderly, the
poor, the disabled, the hungry, Veteran's, Father's after a divorce etc., they
could give a rats-behind less that real living human people needed a place to
sleep, some need to see a doctor or dentist and some need help finding a job.
ANYTHING that's called "generosity" are called by the Tea Party and
GOP as entitlement's. The only "good-hearted Americans.", are your
imaginary friends on Facebook, that dump you, telling you their keyboard just
caught some plague and they don't want you to catch it. Plus seeing you refuse
to tax more the ultra rich Koch Brother type's, who stash their stash in off
shore tax safe havens, then you'll pay for it them with no tax deductions. I
also believe that Sen. Hatch is on the Senate Finance Committee, and the axing
the tax write-off incentive couldn't come at a worse time for the less
fortunate, but he don't care either, and, he's a tea sipping Mormon. NAME ME
these 1.5 million nonprofit organizations operate in the United States, all they
do is pay themself a HUGE paycheck, while being tax exempt.
Obama knows exactly what he's doing. The world knows militarialy it will never
be able to bring down the United States. Thus it will need to be brought down
from within. This president, his cabinet, his czars, and the liberal media are
doing their best to make this happen. Years ago a woman asked Benjamin Franklin
after all the meetings, the battles and struggles that went on forming this new
country....What have you given us sir? His reply, a Republic....if you can keep
it. My greatest fear...this nation will not stand if this president is given 4
more years. May god bless this great country and bless the people who reside
here, that they may be able to recoginize and understand constitutional
principles as compared to tyranny and this government running amuck.
No matter what they do to tax chartable contributions it should also effect your
tithing, that should be taxes along with all Church's because the LDS's over $30
Billion a year should not be any part of a God given request and promise, just
another GOP tax to grab for the Koch Brother's and BIG BUSINESS entitlements
A Republican and a Democrat come across a homeless man. The Democrat reaches
into his pocket and hands the homeless man his last two dollars. As he walks
away, he thinks to himself, "I need to send out an email to my
congressional representative and tell him the government needs to do more for
the homeless." He feels good about himself.The Republican
removes the last two dollars from his pocket and hands it to the homeless man.
As he walks away he thinks to himself, "What more can I do to help the
homeless? He then makes a generous donation to a local homeless shelter while
committing himself to find ways to do more. He feels good about himself, but
knows there is more to be done.
Interestingly there is no mention of the "T" word (tithing) in the
comments section today so far. The question boys and girls is: Would MaCain have
made a similiar proposal eliminating charitable contributions had he been
elected? In all fairness eliminating the AMT (Alternative Mininium Tax) or
tweaking it would have made the sting less painful.
JoeBlow - our family would be an example, more or less, of your family 2. We
have seven kids ages 12 through 1. We home school. We have never used any kind
of welfare. We do everything we can to follow the advice of our church leaders
to be self-reliant. How much taxes do you think we should pay?
@Abeille"I pay taxes, I donate to charity. It was never your money.
"Actually... it was (if your means gov't). You just said you
pay your taxes. Alright, you paid your income tax. Then you file your tax return
and deduct your charitable donations. That's you asking the gov't to give you
money back. Simple as that. No different than asking for other deductions from
the gov't or asking the gov't for welfare because you qualify for it. That money
you're asking the gov't to give you so you can give it to charity... that's
being charitable with other people's money."If no deduction is
given for Charitable contributions, the result will be less charitable giving,
since I have less. "Notice how in your example your tax burden
went from 2 million to 400k. That 2 million is what your hypothetical tax rate
was. That IS the gov'ts money that you want to turn around and give to charity
which is fine and all but... you just decreased federal revenues 1.6 million.
You just increased the federal deficit 1.6 million. You just handed future
generations the bill. You spent their money.
I'm seeing a recurring theme in these articles about charitable deductions: if
your motives for giving are not 100% pure (giving soley for the purpose of
helping those in need, without regard to any benefit that may accrue to
you)there is somehow something wrong with it and you shouldn't do it. Does
every donation have to be one that hurts? Instead of complaining about why
people donate, we should just continue to encourage people to donate, as has
been the case in the tax code for years and years. Its a good policy and for
those who feel the government is in their life too much, it sure beats the
government's inefficient and corruption laden efforts to help those in need.
To "JoeBlow | 11:35 a.m." but you forget that your buddy FDR designed
SS to require the labor of those 6 kids to pay for YOUR retirement. While those
kids represent a tax deduction of $1000/child right now, in the future, if those
children earn the same amount as their parents, they will result in 500%
increase in SS funding compared to the family with only 1 child.So,
at the end of your life, when those 6 kids are paying for your SS and Medicare
for 20 to 25 years of your retirement, are you going to complain that they
didn't pay enough taxes or are you going to be glad that the system didn't
collapse because everybody only had 1 child.Remember, the government
gives tax breaks to encourage desired behavior.Also, there is
nothing stoping the family with 1 child from donating 10% of their income to
charity.Why do you want to force others to conform to your ways?
TAX the untra rich Church's and all deductions for donations to charities, Why?BECAUSE - I'm not part of the
ReaganBushClintonBush-villes economics!. That's Utah's own Sen Hatch
and Lee and their government's inefficient corruption plots in back stage
@justaguy"it sure beats the government's inefficient and corruption
laden efforts to help those in need. "The gov't is fairly
efficient actually, and I don't think charity is any better. Let's take an
example most everyone here would be familiar with... the LDS church. Now, I
don't need to be told the church has a significant contribution to charitable
type things. But what about tithing? Tithing is primarily upkeep of the church.
It's the fast offerings, humanitarian aid, the continuing education fund, the
missionary trip funding thing, that thing mentioned during conference about
flying people in isolated areas of the world to temples, and so on and so forth;
that is the real charity work in the church and there's a lot of it. All of
those including tithing can be deducted and I'm sure tithing is the largest
contributor to church income and I'd bet that the majority of members report
tithing for deduction purposes. Because of that, the church is operating at less
than 50% charitable efficiency which is lower than the gov't. So I'm not so sure
the claim that private organizations are more efficient is accurate.
atl134: The money that is withheld from one's paycheck is an estimate of
possible tax, not the actual tax. It's when you file your taxes that you pay
your tax. Getting a refund for over-estimating your withholding during the year
is NOT asking the government to "give money back." You can shift your
estimated withholding substantially, one way or the other, depending on how you
fill out your W-9. You must not be among those paying taxes if you don't
understand this simple factJoeBlow: What you are missing is that the
parents of Family #1 will need much of the FICA revenue from the children of
Family #2 to pay for their social security and other benefits they will receive
as they age (the FICA they paid over the years plus the FICA from their single
child won't begin to cover their benefits
re:Kami my 10% to my church will continue no matter what however
that isn't the case for many other folks especially for those that aren't
millionaires and want to give to charity but also need to be rewarded for that
generous act by government that they pay taxes to. Isn't it the government that
is supposed to look out for its people and what better way than to incent people
to contribute to the charity of THEIR CHOICE. You seem to want to take away that
choice and hand it over to old trusty Uncle Sam.
@atl134,What you fail to take into account is that these
organizations are lightening the burdens placed on the government. In the
example that you highlight, the key question is: would the government be able to
provide the same needed help for less than $1.6 million?If these
organizations are able to provide the help more efficiently than the government,
then the government is receiving $1.6 million less, but would avoid having to
pay, say, $2 million to meet the same needs. This would result in a greater
loss for the government than if it allowed a charity to take care of the
needy.Simply collecting more money doesn't make a difference in how
well off you are if your expenditures increase at a faster rate.So,
what do you think? Has the government proven that it can operate more
efficiently than the private market when it comes to taking care of the needy?
It appears to me that this is a potential maneuver by the government to create
more dependency upon the government...to see the government increasingly as the
be-all and end-all of all our troubles.If we can get the private
sector to have a harder time taking care of each other, we can justify the need
for government programs to take care of those who are struggling and we can
justify taking more and more taxes to do so. Ultimately, this just creates more
slavery of the American People, both those in need and those who are forced to
give up their substance in order to help those in need.
This is how much Obama cares for all of us I'll tell you that.
Sasha "We have seven kids ages 12 through 1. We home school."I commend you. you are certainly the exception. However, you still pay
significantly less taxes than Family one. Could you explain to Family one as to
why they should pay more than you?To those who claim the Social
Security angle.I agree that something needs to change. But,an ever
increasing population is certainly a bigger problem than Social Security.
Thanks, Wiley Old School and Hawkeye79. These were the exact points I was going
to make in responding to atl134. You've made them so well there is nothing left
for me to say. You both get a 'Recommend' from me.
Revenue is not the problem. Spending on non-essential and entitlement programs
is the problem. If charitable people give less to private charities, that
shortfall falls back on the government to help those receipients. In order to
meet that shortfall the government will need to tax even more. Government will
never be able to tax enough to make up for the efficiency of the private sector.
Forced charity through taxation has never and will never work. Planned
government programs always lead to a lose of freedom for everyone.
For starters:"...Under pressure to deal with the face of
burgeoning national deficit, Congress has been considering more than a dozen
different proposals to reduce or do away with tax deductions for donations to
charity...". Congress is considering more than a dozen
proposals.Will the DN give readers the "specifics" on the
other 11 different proposals?It would be great fun to bash the
sponsors of those other proposals.Finally:"...If
the government does away with tax breaks for charitable contributions many worry
donors will give less and needy people will go without...".I,
somehow, missed the part, in Malachi, where it "says" I should tithe,
as an example, in order to obtain a tax break. Thank you.
I have to look at this whether or not it will help people. I just don't see
Some of your "logic" in this post is completely amazing to me. We
have conservatives who, on many many articles on DN, will post that the
government is giving too many handouts, that people should not be entitled, that
people should go to work ... blah blah blah. Yet when it serves your purposes,
you are arguing that donations to charities should be deducted because otherwise
the government will have to give more handouts. So here, you seem to be
supporting the notion that someone give away freebies to those without and
apparently would accept that the government might have to do that. Are you all
flip floppers like your poster boy is?
SuperManThe thing you are not understanding is that Obama is using
his social engineering tacticts to leave less money in the pocket of the
individual at the end of the day. When that occurs those same individuals will
have less to contribute to their church or charity. Whats more, you don't seem
to understand how the disciples of Alinsky work...they want everybody to be in
slavery to the central government. sabe?
To "ClarkKent | 2:51 p.m." sorry, you are a liberal. It is well
documented that liberals use their emotions to guide their understanding of the
world. Conservatives have been shown to use logic for their understanding of
the world.See "The Worldview Problem for American
Politics" at the University of Chicago by George Lakoff.The
article is quite balanced in its description of Liberals and Conservatives, and
why they don't understand eachother.
My biggest fear in all of this is the possibility that Obama knows exactly what
he's doing and believes it to be right. Scarier than if he had no clue and were
at the helm, eh? I think he and his cronies know exactly what they're doing and
they don't care. When the government fears the people there is liberty, when the
people fear the government, there is tyranny!
Kami,In coming across a few of your comments, it seems clear that
you view tax breaks for charitible contributions as a gift from the government,
as though they are just giving you money you haven't already earned to
incentivize you to give to charity.This type of flawed thinking is
something I'm sure the government would be very pleased with.One of
the greatest things about our nation is the generosity of its people. Our
citizens donate more to charity than any other country on the planet. The idea
of the government penalizing that charity by dipping into what we're not even
keeping for ourselves makes me sick to my stomach. Maybe our
government should prove they know how to responsibly spend the money they
already take before they start stealing more of it.
I have not read the actual proposal. However, if this article is correct then
passing a law like this could be a catastrophe for all charities. Seems counter
intuitive to the idea of sharing the load. Could very well be the final nail in
Obama's political coffin. I can only assume that there is some huge PAC money
being thrown at this to explain any defense of such a horrible piece of
legislation. Talk about adding fuel to the OCCUPY movement. First, kick the
little guy, then take away his only shelter. It's time for citizens to rise and
take back our country from all those who seek only power and money. Major Wall
Street reform is needed as well as a fundamental shift in how politicians are
held accountable to the citizens. PAC control equals political control. How long
will it be before we as a country realize that there has already been a
corporate takeover of our country?
The government will ALWAYS make the people suffer first for it "cuts"
or increases. Why not just eliminate the useless income tax, then we would have
plenty of money for charitable giving. You think the Dems care about you? Think
This is a complicated issue and not a simple decision of good vs. bad. I'd have no problem eliminating the tax deductions to churches and requiring
those charities that directly help to do so under some formula for funds
utilization. While some charities may give 90% (The LDS church's record has been
exemplary in this regard) many do not and use the charity as a mechanism to
funnel huge salaries and benefits to very few.I believe churches
should lose their tax exempt status altogether as well. No property tax, no
income tax...this lead to the invention of Scientology. Let's eliminate it.For those who oppose the idea of eliminating this "deduction",
you will have to reconcile that with the ardent support with a flat tax, the
9-9-9 plan and a national sales tax (of the FAIR tax...ironically named). None
of those plans will provide a tax haven for charity.
Let's not pretend this article is about anything other than trying to convince
people that religions are charities.
As a tax profession I am adverse to the idea of eliminating the deduction for
charitable contributions. Would I would like to see are non-profits that have
mandatory contributions (i.e a tithe) should be taxed on the contributions they
receive. Research foundations and aid foundations would be exempt form reporting
such incomes as the contributions they receive are discretionary.
No more tax deductions for shopping malls!
but wait ... aren't the demo-rats the "compassionate party"??? Yes the
same party that is trying to kill charitable contributions as well as cut 500
billion from medicare to fund Obamacare. I think most folks would agree to do
without that upside down compassion!! Dem's are such hypocrites!!
One important element that many are forgetting is that the families that have 4,
5 or 10 kids (especially those in Utah) are also likely to grow up to be
taxpayers too. They will be the ones who will have to support the rest of us
when the government files bankruptcy for out of control spending on useless pork
If charity is about tax deduction, it isn't charity at all.
I have an idea... how about before we start cutting deductions we get Obama's
several cabinet members and cronies to start paying their taxes first. That
seems like a good place to start.If they get rid of the charitable
donations deduction, it wouldn't affect me in the least. I'd continue to donate
to my favorite charities and to my church just as always. I don't do it for the
deduction; I do it because it's the right thing to do.
TheAthiest -As one Tax Professional to another: What happens when
the non-profit doesn't have mandatory contributions (i.e. a tithe)? As an active
member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, I can either pay
tithing or decide not to. It's up to me - and up to each member. I will never be
excommunicated for lack of tithing payment (although I wouldn't be eligible to
attend the temple). If I choose to live the Law of Tithing as I understand it,
does that mean paying tithing to my church is a 'mandatory contribution'? No -
the funds are as discretionary as those for Research and Aid foundations. And,
knowing how tax law changes, what happens if personal income tax does revoke the
deduction for charitable contributions? I wouldn't think you'd be in favor of
double-taxation (once personally, once through the church). Finally, why is this
only a problem for you when a church is involved? You might be an Athiest, but
everyone doesn't see things the same way you do. What do you think - would it be
fair to assess a tax on everyone contributing to Atheism? If not, your thinking
For all of those scathing accusations against the LDS church and tithing;
consider this- All of the jobs that the LDS church has including a
very good insurance and benefits program. Including building consrtuction,
upkeep and general office jobs.Subsidized schooling- I am sure
Occupy wallstreet would appreciate this.Buying cars, equipment and
other furnishing for chapels and temples.Airfair to all those visits
all over the world.I know this is very capitalistic for all you
dems/commies but this is all purchased with tithing money. It is a economic
stimulus and provides jobs all over the world.This is in addition to
the humanitarian aid, perpetual education, missionary fund and fast offerings
that we use to keep our members off the goverment dole. You're welcome USA for
the LDS church's ability to take care of their own so the goverment doesn't have
Obama is a marxist. Marxism is hostile to religion and wants all things to come
from the state, not from individuals, groups, or churches. So it is no surprise
to see him pushing this kind of nonsense...most everything he's pushed has been
Marxist at its core. Please remove this guy from the white house in 2012.
Reply: AbeilleI am not biased against the Church. You presented me
holding a position that I do not. Your logical fallacies aside, whether or not
you choose to recognize it, you receive a service for your donation to the
church. Abeille, as you stated you are only eligible for a temple recommend
while paying a tithe, in hand, a good or service for your donation.Once again, atheism has nothing to do with this discussion and yes if an
atheist foundation were to render a service for the donation it receives then it
shouldn't be tax exempt. Furthermore, I would like you to point out anywhere in
my post where I stated that the donors should not receive a deduction for their
contributions. I stated that the receiving entity should be taxed.If
you chose to reply, please do not address positions I do not hold.
Reply: AbeilleAlso quick note as I ran out of room, I used churches
as an example as they are the most common example of a entity receiving
donations in exchange for goods or services.
Essentially our president wants the government to have more power and private
citizens & organizations to have less. This is simply a transfer of power
that I'm strongly opposed to. What he is suggesting will not strengthen our
nation. The proposal suggests that government expenditures are superior to the
work of charitable organizations and that the government is better able to spend
the wealth created by its citizens than so-called do-gooders. I believe that
the more power & control that the government obtains, the higher the
likelihood that corrupt individuals will seek & obtain positions of
authority within the organization. This is not a direction I have. There needs
to be a balance of power among the government, other organizations, &
individual citizens. Let's not shift even more control to the organization that
is the worst at managing its resources.
Every idea Obama comes up with means I pay more in taxes.
@Rainman - I am not certain you clearly understand the current tax code.
Assuming you have the average American who pays zero income taxes. Obama has cut
the one tax you pay on all of you wages, again assuming you are a average income
earner. Obama made cuts to social security/medicare taxes and his job plan which
for the record, I did not agree with was to cut the tax even further. I believe
to 3.2% I could be wrong on the exact number, however under Bush you were paying
7.65% of your wages into ss/mc taxes.
Correction, "This is not the direction we want to go."
The rich can pay alittle more? How about government spending alittle less?BO= Boot-him Out
With our tax money--Obama will decide which charities get money and how it's to
be used. This is no different than having the feds controlling our childrens
education. Corrupt with a small bang for the buck.
"aren't the demo-rats" - ah, there you go, all the makings of a well
thought out and fact based argument.... insults. Why do people actually
think comments like this make them look smart or clever. Once the
"conservatives" figure out that they can influence people to their
position when they do so respectfully, people might start listening. But
encouraged on by the political shock jocks on radio, they somehow think flinging
insults will get to take them seriously. Conservatives will only get respect
when they give respect.I am still trying to figure out what part of
"christian values" involves slander and insults. Even President
Benson, a tried and true conservative never resorted to lowering himself to
insulting those who did not agree with him. He defend his positions with
passion, but resort to insults and name calling, this would be far beneath
him.@Rainman, so exactly how much have your taxes gone up over the
last two years.... I would really love to know. If your taxes really have gone
up, I think you need a new tax person. What taxes of yours went up, or is that
just another little conservative talking points..... minus facts.
Joe Blow, how about family #1 gives 10% of their income to a charity of their
choice? That would lower their taxes...if they are so concerned about it. OR
maybe they are too worried about sharing their resources with the overpopulated
world. Selfish is always the "other guy"....
By the way DN, "Obama: Cut deductions for charity" - not a very
accurate nor honest headline there. I get your are trying to shock people into
reading the piece, but do so honestly. Really expect more from a publication
own by the Church.
I have read all of the foregoing comments. Sadly, it is always the same with
these forums. Most of the comments have very little to do with an intelligent
exchange of constructive ideas. Instead, it seems, most of those
who participate are engaged in bashing each other over religion (or the lack
thereof), politics or the author's private peeve getting another chance to be
advertised.And after having gotten a stomach full of trash talk, I
am not one ounce better educated than I was when I started reading these
comments.I would like to read an intelligent, in depth analysis of
what cutting these deductions for donations might do to our economy - for good
or for bad, without any infighting.Neither the article nor any of
these 80 plus comments has given me an answer.I am left with only my
own opinion - just like the rest of you - and that's all it is - "my own
opinion". "I have more confidence in Charities and
Churches, as providers of welfare services, than I do in the Federal Government.
I "fear" that the current Administration will create another agency
and end up spending more more money than they save."
Sounds like alot of people are upset because their "charitable"
donations will actually be charitable. If you need a tax credit to feel
compelled to donate to a charity your not acting charitable at all, just loaning
out cash until the feds reimburse you.
This is a move for control. People will give less and thus the charities will
have less resources to help the poor/disaster victims etc. Where will they
turn? The federal government! Obama and his ilk want everyone to be completely
dependent on the feds. I can't think of a worse scenario---waste, corruption,
graft, etc. will skyrocket. Can you say ACORN?
Time to stop subsidizing churches that sell tax deductions. We need to balance
the budget, not give money away.
TwoBitsWorth,I see your point, and will try to make a logical argument for
you. I do agree that many deductions need to be removed from the tax code.
Charitable deductions is not one of them. This deduction encourages
philanthropy, which is for the common good of our society. It helps charities
out there which in turn help keep our standard of living high. Should we start
seeing nonprofits fail, it will hurt all of us (imagine no homeless shelters, no
food pantries, no united way, no Boy Scouts, etc.). I would prefer to see the
removal of deductions that do nothing for the common good (depreciation of
personal assets such as airplanes as an example). Unfortunately, Congress
has becomes so hyperpartisan, no tax increases can occur via removal of
Completely off subject, but indirectly connected, much of the objection is based
off the idea that the government can't do anything right.... these comments
being echoed last night by Ron Paul. And yet each day we have tens
of thousands of flights flown safely because of federal employes managing the
skies. The TSA and other federal agencies have kept us safe as we travel, in
the order of billions of travel miles over the last 10 years, without incident.
When we dial 911, responders are at our door in minutes. If you travel to the
national parks, you almost always have a safe, clean experience. Our military
has successfully brought an end to several of those who would bring death to our
soil. Tens of millions receive their social security checks on time each month
- with little fan fare. I can ship a little from my door to my sisters door
across the country in 3 days, for 45 cents, reliably.Yes, any entity
that gets overly large can have issues, and most do. Ever been on the board
trying to get a new chapel built? But saying the government can't
do anything right is not accurate or fare.
If you owe $10,000 in taxes, giving $5,000 to a charity that you benefit from
should not lower your taxes.I, for example belong to an airplane
club with it's full write off as a 501c. So if I give the club $5,000 I'm really
getting more flying fun and lowering my taxes. Great deal huh? Aren't you glad
the nation will go more in debt because I'm having fun flying? Whoo hoo, only in
america!Oh, how about this one the rich use all the time. Ever
wonder why that crazy modern art is so popular? Well, you just buy some dumb
painting cheap, wait for the guy to die and have it appraised for $1 gagillion
dollars. You then give it to a charity and take it off your taxes.... Only in
America!You see for all of you craying for the government to get out
of your beeswax, getting out of charity promotion is getting out of your
It has come to this- this administration is for:-elimination of the
Defense of Marriage Act-elimination of the government's
responsibility to persecute porn -validation of an openly homosexual
presence in the military-continued efforts to keep the unborn
"unborn" (in other words: protection for those who practice and
support abortion)-elimination of incentives to help support needy
and worthwhile causes. While we as Americans shouldn't need a tax
break to give to others, this isn't the purpose of this administration. No, it's
purpose is to extract an ever increasing amount of money from our pockets to
help fund unnecessary and, in fact, dangerous programs such as listed above.
This is so funny. A couple of weeks ago most of you were in here yammering
about taking away Social Security because is was a ponzi scheme and now your
outraged about having your deduction taken away on charitable donations. Could
you people be any more transparent? What is it you want?
Tax receipts to the US Treasury have continued to grow every year, even through
this recession. We don't have a government income problem. What we have is a
greedy government that's addicted to spending. Hey, Congress! Before you start
bleeding the people any more, get rid of frivolous and unnecessary programs.
There are entire departments that can be eliminated, such as the Department of
Education. Education is best run by states and localities. Severely reduce the
size, scope and power of the EPA. Eliminate contributions to the arts, Planned
Parenthood, public broadcasting, etc. Get rid of the president's czars. Then
switch over to a flat tax or a fair tax where everyone pays. Get my drift!?
Well Anne26, what planet did you say that you live on? The government has never
been able to handle money and nothing has changed - they never will. All they
want is the power to do what THEY want to do with our money. Look on the
internet and find the article that shows you how much money those people(?) take
home every year. My husband was in the Army for 3 years, worked for and retired
from the government after 33 years of employment. I sure wish that he could get
his salary every year, we could have a great time with it.
If you want government out of our business and the tax code simplified, then it
makes sense to do away with all of the "500" code sections
(establishing qualifying organizations, etc.) and related regulations, and let
us all handle the charitable thing on our own (you know in families and the
atl134, you misunderstand what the tax return is for, and what a refund means.
The tax return is a means of settling an account. You add up the debits and
credits, figure out how much you owe, and the difference between that and what
you actually paid is either a refund or an amount still owed.Deductions and credits are provided by the government to encourage behavior by
citizens deemed to be of value to the country as a whole, or to lessen the
burden on the poor. Saying that these are government handouts is like saying
when Target puts something on sale, and you buy it, they are giving you some of
their money.The money I earn is 100% mine, until I decide to give it
to someone else. I pay my taxes. Once I give it to the government, then it
belongs to them. If my tax return calculates I am due a refund, it is my money
that I have overpaid, not a handout back to me.
Obama wants to cut deductions for charities, because he gives very little of h
is income to charities. This is another one of his clueless, baseless
philosophies. His people have not done any research on how much charities keep
people of welfare. Man, will this President ever get it. I doubt it. He is
steeped in socialism, where the government takes care of everything. We need to
make this man and his administration a ONE TERM only. IF we don't he and his
ilk will destroy this country.
This would be the best thing for this country all of these activist groups that
buy politicians would not have the money they need to exist. We could get back
to the government run by the people not extremist.
Poor Barack. He is one desperate politician who knows the hour glass is almost
empty. His presidency should put the lid on the ultra liberal approach to
solving economic problems.
To "L Kaiser | 3:43 a.m." actually it isn't about not getting the tax
deduction. The problem is that before I could donate $10000 to charity, and
lower my taxes by $2000. Now, I have to pay that $2000 in taxes, which leaves
only $8000 to give to charity. This idea of removing the charitible deduction,
you will cut into the abilty of charities to serve the people they were designed
to help. If charities can't help people, who is left to look to for help?
As an employee of the Federal Government, and moreover as one whose work often
involves making decisions on how to distribute federal funds to non-profit and
non-governmental organizations, I have a few things to say on this matter.I disagree with many of the posters who claim that all government money
is squandered. Often, it goes into the hands of those same types of
organizations which are the most capable to make social changes. While there is
no doubt that much is wasted, we need to be careful not to throw the baby out
with the bathwater.Neverthless, we need to be even more careful that
we don't diminish the capacity of non-profit organizations to serve needy
populations. While it is the sad truth that there are many non-profit
organizations which are woefully unorganized and inadequate, there are many
which do function well and which, if properly supported, make our job (in the
federal government) a whole lot easier. Don't cut incentives for
charitable giving. I have supported many of the president's policies in the
past, but I disagree with this approach. The non-governmental sector must not be
I am so sick of people who want to find ways for other people to pay more taxes
so that they can pay less. Then they selfishly oppose everything that might
impact them. Everybody is screaming for the Feds to balance the budget.I am not wealthy. I give as I can. I have never once considered
whether the donation would help reduce my tax bills. Are all of you saying you
donate for the tax benefits? That without them, you would refuse to give?
That's not really charitable giving now, is it?
Redshirt, So you donate 10k a year in charity, but also expect the
government to reimburse you for 2k of it. The charities still recieve the 10k
you donated, they arent taxed, it isnt taken from them. the only thing that
changes is you dont get 20% of it back. Again, it seems like your trying to
justify donating less the next year because your not getting part of your
"charity" reimbursed from the previous year. You dont want the big
government spending your money, but you want them to reimburse you for your
Instead of cutting deductions for charitable donations, the most efficient way
to fix the financial nightmare we are in: Get rid of Obama and all
of his cronies - now. The new President (Anyone but Barrack Hussein
Obama) should appoint Ron Paul (he will never be elected as President) as US
Treasury Secretary, and Donald Trump as Foreign Ambassador to China.
"The other $4,500 would come from fellow taxpayers who might not even know
your favorite charity or, if they did, might not much like it,"
Reinhardt.Mr. Reinhardt's statement is interesting because it
indicates that he does not trust the American people to decide what the better
choices are for deciding how money in their control should be spent to help
improve the country.This portion of the tax-code as it currently
stands is also not written in bias for church-goers. For the anti-church folks
out there, you can still use this specific deduction by donating to some other
approved charity besides a church.
@Paul in MD,"I seem to remember seeing a chart addressing this
a long time ago, that showed what percentage of donated funds actually went to
the people served by the charity. Some good ones actually use 90% or better
directly in assistance, with less than 10% going to overhead costs. I'd like to
see how much overhead there is associated with Federal programs supporting the
needy."- Would love to see those numbers with the LDS church.
Some claim the average member donates about $4-5/year to humanitarian aid, the
rest of their donations go 'elsewhere'.@Johnny Triumph"This would end most charitable giving in the US and would have terrible
results. Think of all the food pantries, the goodwill stores, the medical aid
groups, all would go without and the poor, the truly needy, would be hurt yet
again."- I don't know about you, but when I donate, I donate.
I don't expect tax deductions, I do it directly to help someone else, not
myself.Those who stop donating when they don't get a tax deduction
... aren't donating for the right reasons.
@Informed Voter"The best course is to eliminate Obama via the
2012 election. His policies are designed to transform America. It is not that he
does not understand; he is doing this on purpose. People who think he is naive
and misinformed need to wake up and pay attention. He knows what he is doing,
and it is not good for the country. "Do you know Obama? You
know for a fact that he's purposely doing this? And you know, for a FACT, that
it's bad for the country?If you're so informed I want some facts.
Either your speaking 'truth' or your talking nonsense. I want some answers.
Use taxes to raise revenue for the Government, not promote or punish behavior.
Charities should prosper or fail based on their own merits, not upon the
Government's subsidy of them.
How is giving to a megachurch a benefit to society? They give very little to the
poor, there are no laws that they must give away the donations they recieve.Many 501c charities are terrible and run by charlatains. They call about
donating to the fire department and then give only 20% to the fire department.
There are clubs set up as 501c's so people can go flying, boating,
golfing and reduce thier taxes for having a good time. There needs
to be some sanity brought into the equation instead of a loophole that puts the
country in greater deabt by avoiding taxes.
re: Dart Thrower - "Use taxes to raise revenue for the Government, not
promote or punish behavior." So it sounds like you're saying taxes
shouldn't be used to fund law enforcement? I'm pretty sure law enforcement
promotes and punishes behavior deemed by society to be desirable or undesirable.
Sounds like we could get rid of most of government under your plan, starting
with Congress, since we wouldn't want any 'laws' on the books promoting or
punishing behavior, then we could get rid of the Judiciary branch of government
since no laws to enforce. Let's see, no military needed since we'd hate to
punish other countries behavior like invading. Yep, let's just throw it all
away, sounds like a great plan to me, were I an anarchist.
Heaven forbid Congress cut their salaries, now let's punish people for being
charitable. I swear this President never ceases to astonish me with his
disregard for traditional values.
I sure grow tired of the anti-government rhetoric I read from many of you.This government IS "of the people, by the people, and for the
people." If you don't like how your fellow citizens are performing their
roles in government, then RUN for office yourself! See if you can do better!If you are too frail in spirit, intellect or ability to run for public
office, then at least have the courage to VOTE for one of your fellow citizens
you can support.If you are too cowardly and inept to run OR to vote,
you are barely a nominal citizen of this great nation, and are more like a
parasite, sucking benefit from those who DO run for office, serve in public
positions, and vote.Our Government is not inherently evil,
inefficient or corrupt. It is comprised of YOUR fellow citizens! It was designed
NOT to be an oligarchy, aristocracy, plutocracy, theocracy, or even a
nationalistic bipartizan crony capitalism-opoly!To the degree it has
become any of these, it is because YOU are content to sit around whining and
criticizing instead of getting involved and SERVING the greater good!
Wow! Our country went a hundred thirty seven years without federal income
tax.Freedom is endangered when people allow government to steal from
Let me make sure I understand. Take away the charitable donations (or part of
them) and tax revenue goes up. At the same time we'd have more needy who would
need government help since conceivably those providing help from the charitable
donations could not longer provide such help....woops there goes the increased
tax revenue back out the doorUnemployment goes up since many who
work for charitable organizations may not be paid.....woops. There goe that dang
unemployment rate back up again.You, that's our president, once
again ding the wrong thing for the right reasons.
Encouraging charitable giving is one of the biggest bargains the government
gets. The many individuals helped by private agencies need less help from
government sources. Nearly always private organizations provide that help much
more efficiently than government can. Cutting charitable giving deduction would
be a huge false economy and only hurt us financially in the long run. I can
only shake my head in amazed dismay at the reasoning of the esteemed Professor
Reinhardt of Princeton fame and others of his philosophic ilk. To carry his
reasoning to it's logical conclusion one can only conclude that we should give
ALL our money and property to the government, which possesses all wisdom,
altruism, and knowledge, and allow it to distribute the people's resources as it
deems proper, receiving whatever is doled out to me in gratitude, trusting the
government to see to my physical, mental, and spiritual welfare in all things.
Of course Marx already came up with this idea, and several countries- like the
former Soviet Union- tried hard to put the idea into practice. DIdn't exactly
work out so well, but why should we pay any attention to history.
If I make $50K gross per year and the government takes $10K in taxes. That
leaves my family with $40K. If I choose to give the Red Cross $5K and claim the
charitable donation, the government will return $1K of the original $10K I paid
in taxes. So now with my charitable donation and tax return, I'm left with $36K
annually to spend on my family's needs. Yet if I hadn't donated to charity, I
would have $40K annually to spend. So how does having a charitable tax
deduction make my giving less charitable? It doesn't! With the deduction, when
one donates to charity, he/she still ends up with less money than if they hadn't
donated. Not sure how removing the tax deduction would make my giving more
charitable as some have state. If my family requires $36K for the mortgage,
insurance, food, clothing, etc., then removing the charitable deduction will
cause me to only be able to afford a $4K donation to charity. Elimination of
the deduction is simply a transfer of financial power to government. People
would have to sacrifice more if they want to donate the same amount... or they
will likely donate less.
What happened to the soup kitchen Obama was pushing regarding 911? He doesn't
know what he wants. Except our money to pay for the spending he has done. He may
have had some of you fooled last election. I sure hope you, who voted forhim last time, have learned your lesson. Lets get him out of office. We cannot
afford to give to the poor if we loose our deduction.
charitible contributiona is win/win. why would you make the poorest suffer if
you claim to care. instead make rules to make sure as much of the donation as
possible gets to the intended recipient...and I do not mean the overpaid CEO's
of these non-profits.
I laugh at those suggesting the dependent's tax is unfair - that the family
making 75k with 6 kids should pay the same taxes as a the family making 75k with
one kid. One family is raising 6 future tax payors, the other 1. Every country
has tax incentives to have children - it's an investment in future tax dollars.
Raising 6 future taxpayers...Others are paying for thier education
so don't take all the credit. And the chances of them al being able to afford
college and pay a lot of taxes is diminishing every day. There's no
reason anyone should subsidize YOUR family choices.
Normal guy,An incentive?Yeah, that's exactly why people
have children:"Hey, honey, I just did our taxes, and you know
what? We need to have some kids so we can get some deductions!"Right.
Postulate all you want about how much taxes the future tax payers we're all
raising will pay, but America is relying on the future generation and is
encouraging us to have even more with tax breaks.No country on earth
has figured out how to keep an economy vibrant without population growth. To
that end, Germany now provides one year maternity and one month paternity for
the parents of every child born. They also have a national holiday where
citizens are encouraged to say home and make future tax payers. Why so drastic?
Guess how their econonmy went when the pipe of future tax payers started drying
up.I don't even like future tax payers all that much. The tax
breaks and government funded education don't cover a tenth of their cost and
especially the mess. However, I'm very aware that we need future tax payers in
the country to ensure I'm taken care of as I grow old so I still slave away at
@screwdriver 4:22 pmI'm not familiar with all big churches, but I am
familiar with the biggest church in Utah. That one gives substantial amounts of
money and resources and training to the poor. Churches generally
teach people to live moral, honest, industrious lives. If people generally lived
moral, honest, industrious lives, there would be a lot fewer problems for the
government to try to solve through welfare, prisons, social services, increased
police force, regulating business, etc. That was a main point of Dallin Oaks's
testimony.Even though our government accomplishes many good things,
it accomplishes little in teaching the citizens what good things to be involved
to live productive lives that contribute to a healthy society.So if
the law is tweaked so that donations to the boat club don't receive the
deduction, then that's great. If the law is tweaked so that donations to The
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, and other churches that at least
mostly promote good behavior from the citizens, don't receive the deduction,
then that's a bad thing for our country.
I again agree with Kami. Donating to charity should NOT be based on receiving an
income tax deduction.How many of our senators and congressmen from
Utah voted AGAINST starting the Wars in Afghanistan and Iraq? How much is the
cost of these wars adding to the federal deficit?How do the
conservatives propose to pay for the Iraq War and Afghanistan War that President
George W. Bush started and at the same time gave the tax cut to the rich?
Keep in mind that Obama and his kind have no respect for private organizations
that do charity work. His goal is for the government to do everything and own
everything. If he can wipe out these organizations they he will replace them
with government union employees at a cost of 5x or more. Once you understand
Obama, you will understand why they do things.
WHY do conservatives blame Unions and the Federal Government? Wasn't
it Wall Street and the Bankers who caused the financial duress? How many Wall
Street Brokers and Bankers are members of Unions?How much of the
hundreds of thousands of dollars Kirilenko saved because of the tax cut for the
rich went to charities in the United States?
To "Allen#1 | 5:46 p.m." no, it wasn't Wall Street and the Bankers
that caused the financial duress. It was the government regulations that forced
banks to make more subprime loans that caused the problem. That was combined
with very low interest rates (again Federal Government controlled) that
encouraged more speculation in the housing market.So, do you blame
the rule makers for the results of the bad rules, or the people playing the
@ Allen#1: "I again agree with Kami. Donating to charity should NOT be
based on receiving an income tax deduction."Donating to charity
solely for the purpose of receiving an income tax deduction wouldn't be very
smart as you would always end up with less overall money than if you hadn't
donated. Do people understand basic tax deductions and how they work? If one
understands the basics, why would someone give $5K away to charity to get a $1K
tax refund?The charitable deduction allows people to contribute more
to charity than they otherwise would because the government is essentially
matching your charitable contribution at the same percentage as your individual
tax rate. The tax deduction is essentially funneling some of your income tax
dollars to the charity of your choice. So basically you are able to control
where some of your tax contributions are being spent rather than letting a
politician decide where to spend those dollars.