[saquin]

An example from the article:

To illustrate, Mr. Sharpe offers the example of a wealthy donor in the top tax bracket who makes a $100,000 gift. The donor currently would save $35,000 in taxes, or 35 percent of the gift. Under President Obama’s proposal, that same donor would save only $28,000, or 28 percent — a difference of $7,000.

I'm sorry but if someone is wealthy enough to donate $100,000 to charity... but a difference in his tax writeoff of about $7,000 will stop him from donating... then he maybe needs to reexamine his reasons for being "charitable".

[bill1952]

then he maybe needs to reexamine his reasons for being "charitable".

No, maybe he simply needs to tell hussein to shove it. - We are not here to further the socialist agenda by being in any way charitable.
I am currently moving 100% into areas that have no taxable exposure at all, and I am winding down 2 different businesses, as well, so as to stay unexposed.

I am not here to further these agenda items in any way at all, nor am I going to be a useful idiot to do so.

[MediaMole]

then he maybe needs to reexamine his reasons for being "charitable".

At the high end, charity is business. Very few people wake up and decide to donate $100k to the art museum.

Charities have development directors who find potential donors and build proposals to get them to fund projects. These proposals will include the terms of the gift, the project it will fund and show the tax benefits for the donor.

Often these are gifts in the millions involving trusts, donations in kind, matching grants, etc. The tax benefits are a very important part of the calculation.

Also, remember that these gifts are from capital, not from income. That $7000 deduction against an income of $250k represents 10% of their tax bill.

[Elsiejay]

And mebbe government should not strive to discouage private acts of charity or to make government the primary agency of charitable good works, using the wealth produced by private citizens.
Socialism has so many faces, so many nefarious ways to diminish the individual citizen.

[richardtavor]

Not to be critical at all, but I don't think that you understand the picture, here, saquin. A wealthy person may have $100,000 to donate, but if he is penalized by $7,000, then he may only be able to contribute %93,000 instead of $100,000. Now that would be very little impact to the rich person, but the $7,000 loss to the charity might be devastating to the charity. I don't know about your finances, but you sit down every year and try to budget whether you are rich or not...I personally will try to come up with other giving options because charity is important to me. But I still have limited funds, especially with Obamaziation trying to suck up all the money of our country for government control. Obama is trying to take the control of who to give to away from the person that owns the wealth, and take the power into his own hands. The net effect is that the worthwhile causes that the rich are giving to will be shifted to organizations such as ACORN.

[sgtyork]

You miss the point. Its not about the donor’s reasons for giving. Its the encouragement that the tax deduction provides.

Less economic benefit >> smaller donations >> less well off charities >> BIGGER GOVERNMENT.

Got to think like a socialist.