Posted on 12/18/2011 10:04:05 AM PST by SeekAndFind
Psst: Want to know a way to reduce our national debt by a quarter of a trillion dollars over the next decade, and remove an often abused and possibly unconstitutional section of the tax code? Are you sure you do? You may want to sit down.
Get rid of the federal charitable-giving tax deduction.
I know that statement will create a firestorm. I ran the California Community Foundation for 25 years, and the foundation — not to mention your alma mater, the Girl Scouts, the AARP and many other charities — think pretty highly of the tax deduction. It's a third rail of the tax code, right up there with the hallowed mortgage deduction.
But almost a century after the charitable tax deduction was enacted, nobody can say positively, absolutely how much, or even if, it stimulates giving, which was its primary purpose. Moreover, in order to receive tax-deductible gifts, nonprofit corporations must become second-class corporate citizens — they are not allowed to contribute to political campaigns, to lobby or to otherwise politically advocate for the very constituencies they were created to serve.
Last May the Congressional Budget Office presented President Obama with 11 variations on the charitable deduction. It weighed deductions with floors against deductions with ceilings, tax credits with and without floors, incentives for itemizers and non-itemizers.
Obama studied the variations and decided that what we currently have is good enough, but he suggested that Congress get more money into federal coffers by lowering the deduction that those earning $200,000 or more can claim against their charitable donations, from 35% (the top rate of federal income tax) to 28%.
That didn't sit well with the philanthropic sector. So in October, Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) held Senate Finance Committee hearings on the charitable deduction and, predictably, got an earful.
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
It is time to overcome the Stranglehold of the liberals which only make up 20% of the general population. Why do we let the 20% bottom feeders overcome the other 80%?
"When the Christmas Spirit is in short Supply, the Term GRINCH Ye Shall Apply!" - The Book of Who
One good benefit of removing this deduction is that churches and other Christian organizations might stop worrying about offending the IRS and start preaching the Bible.
This is an example of the inevitable result of a progressive income tax:more government control.
RE: One good benefit of removing this deduction is that churches and other Christian organizations might stop worrying about offending the IRS and start preaching the Bible.
I’m all for that if we include in the law, a LOW FLAT TAX with no deductions.
>>Psst: Want to know a way to reduce our national debt by a quarter of a trillion dollars over the next decade, and remove an often abused and possibly unconstitutional section of the tax code?
Psst. Want to know another secret? The freakin government will take that extra money, spend it on useless and ineffective social justice programs, and the debt will still rise!
...or here’s a crazy thought, why not cut gubmint spending?
with all these brilliant economic minds available to them...you wouldn’t think they’d have a series of layoffs and economic troubles at the Times (snicker)
Ya, charitable giving interferes with liberal vote buying through government give aways.
They’d rather steal it from you and buy votes with it, than have you give directly to the truly needy.....
Yes, definitely a Flat Tax or the Fair Tax. I could live with a lower limit to the income being taxed to allow for a tax free basic subsistence deduction. If the Basic Subsistence deduction is in the Tax Code, it should NOT be adjusted for regional Cost Of Living.
If you want to live in DC or NYC, Boston or SF, fine. However, you get the same basic deduction as someone living in rural North Dakota, Mississippi or Indiana. Let the marketplace subsidize high cost of living areas, if it so chooses. But not the taxpayer.
Surprised the first dork hasn’t pushed taxes on churches, YET.
Bring the whole tithe into the storehouse, that there may be food in my house. Test me in this,” says the LORD Almighty, “and see if I will not throw open the floodgates of heaven and pour out so much blessing that there will not be room enough to store it. Malachi 3:9-11
Many Bible-based non-for-profits continue to use Bible-based principals, but have 'cleansed' the name of Jesus. They elected to call upon a generic "greater power."
Christians, obey 2 Chronicles 7:14. "If My people who are called by My name will humble themselves and pray and seek My face, then will I hear from heaven and will forgive them and will heal their land." Time is running out on America as we know it.
Of course since libs don’t support charitable causes with their money, they expect others to do it. I have a sister in law who behaves this way, thinks democrats take better care of the poor.
> churches and other Christian organizations might stop worrying about offending the IRS and start preaching the Bible. <
That is an excellent point. I am en route to leave my leftist political denomination when our orthodox interim pastor leaves to be replaced by a female who is still on a journey regarding the sanctity of homosexual marriage.
Next, go after charitable remainder trusts. CRT’s and foundations are the lifeblood of much leftist nonsense in this country.
One of Lenin's first acts was to ban private charities, which by their existence competed with people's dependency upon the State and their worship of it. A similar action here should be seen as a harbinger.
The California Community Foundation is probably the largest single non-profit in the state. It handles the adminstration and other things for lots of small charities and foundations as well as very large ones. The author was the former head of this foundation and is listed as president emeritus. I wonder what the California Community Foundation’s postion is on the Op-Ed He was president from 1980 to 2004. He’s currently on the board of advisors of the Center for Philanthopy at USC (one source says he was chairman) It’s interesting to note that the paper and he chose to be identified not by his current position but his past one (10+ years ago). I also wonder how USC feels about his Op-Ed. They raise millions and millions on a tax exempt basis.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.