Although the majority of PEOPLE that give money to charities do so from after-tax income because they don't itemize deductions, I suspect the larger contributions ARE from untaxed income because the larger contributors do itemize.
If it isn't worth itemizing your deductions, your marginal tax rate is unlikely to be over 23%, even including SS/M. So this crowd is not going to be able to donate 30% more than they used to.
The itemizers are already donating untaxed dollars, so they see no benefit on the donation side.
If the charity then had to go and pay 30% more for all their operating expenses, there is no way they would come out ahead. Yet the FairTax is touted -- in whitepapers, FAQs, and even the presentation they gave to the Tax Reform Panel last year -- as BETTER for charities than the current system.
It just doesn't add up to your interpretation. I'd be likelier to believe you are misinterpreting the links to the NIPA data -- or even that Karen Walby made a mistake in including that consumption from the base. I posted a message to her last night and provided a link to your post here. Hopefully she'll respond.
Yet the FairTax is touted -- in whitepapers, FAQs, and even the presentation they gave to the Tax Reform Panel last year -- as BETTER for charities than the current system.Has the AFT ever said anyone would be worse off under the FairTax (except drug dealers and illegal immigrants). They don't exist to give people the truth about the FairTax, for better or worse - they exist to get the FairTax passed, by any means necessary.
Although the majority of PEOPLE that give money to charities do so from after-tax income because they don't itemize deductions, I suspect the larger contributions ARE from untaxed income because the larger contributors do itemize.Just curious, did you ever hear from Karen Walby on this issue?
If it isn't worth itemizing your deductions, your marginal tax rate is unlikely to be over 23%, even including SS/M. So this crowd is not going to be able to donate 30% more than they used to.
The itemizers are already donating untaxed dollars, so they see no benefit on the donation side.
If the charity then had to go and pay 30% more for all their operating expenses, there is no way they would come out ahead. Yet the FairTax is touted -- in whitepapers, FAQs, and even the presentation they gave to the Tax Reform Panel last year -- as BETTER for charities than the current system.
It just doesn't add up to your interpretation. I'd be likelier to believe you are misinterpreting the links to the NIPA data -- or even that Karen Walby made a mistake in including that consumption from the base. I posted a message to her last night and provided a link to your post here. Hopefully she'll respond.