A Question About the Fiscal Cliff Negotiations

[Publius1787]

A Question About the Fiscal Cliff Negotiations

Some democrats say that capping tax deductions won’t amount to anything substantive. That is, unless you cap charitable deductions. They further contest that capping charitable deductions would be bad for charities across the United States. My question is this; if you get a deduction for charitable giving, isn’t it in fact the government who paid for the charity and not the person making the donation? Is that charity or blind government incentivized welfare?

 

[DiamondDave]

They worry about bad for charities?? Increased taxation is bad for charities

 

[Publius1787]

They worry about bad for charities?? Increased taxation is bad for charities

Well, I agree. But that doesn't answer my question.

 

[Koios]

A Question About the Fiscal Cliff Negotiations

Some democrats say that capping tax deductions won’t amount to anything substantive. That is, unless you cap charitable deductions. They further contest that capping charitable deductions would be bad for charities across the United States. My question is this; if you get a deduction for charitable giving, isn’t it in fact the government who paid for the charity and not the person making the donation? Is that charity or blind government incentivized welfare?

And even if it did, it's still stupid, if the taxes being raised impact mostly the middle class. It's just a regressive way to tax more, while being able to say "I didn't raise rates." Pure political smoke and mirrors.

 

[oldfart]

A Question About the Fiscal Cliff Negotiations

Some democrats say that capping tax deductions won’t amount to anything substantive. That is, unless you cap charitable deductions. They further contest that capping charitable deductions would be bad for charities across the United States. My question is this; if you get a deduction for charitable giving, isn’t it in fact the government who paid for the charity and not the person making the donation? Is that charity or blind government incentivized welfare?

As long as the marginal tax rate is less than 100%, charitable contributions even if deductible will result in a net after-tax cost to the contributor. As long as the marginal utility of playing a big shot exceeds the after-tax cost of the contribution, rational donors will increase their contributions. Note that most taxpayers of modest means give to their churches and relief efforts such as the Red Cross. Wealthy donors tend to give to the ballet, symphony, medical research, and college endowments and athletics. Whether either is "charity" depends on your definition of charity. Of course, I guess many a libertarian would argue that it is better to have individual donors make decisions as to what is a worthy cause than have the government determine that through the budget process.

 

[Publius1787]

A Question About the Fiscal Cliff Negotiations

Some democrats say that capping tax deductions won’t amount to anything substantive. That is, unless you cap charitable deductions. They further contest that capping charitable deductions would be bad for charities across the United States. My question is this; if you get a deduction for charitable giving, isn’t it in fact the government who paid for the charity and not the person making the donation? Is that charity or blind government incentivized welfare?

And even if it did, it's still stupid, if the taxes being raised impact mostly the middle class. It's just a regressive way to tax more, while being able to say "I didn't raise rates." Pure political smoke and mirrors.

Yeah, I don't think you answered my question either. If the government is refunding me for a donation to a charity then it is, in fact, blind government spending and not a charitable donation. And I don't think anyone in the middle class pay enough to charity to meet the cap. Nevertheless, Obama is offering more spending and tax increases, republicans are offering a reduction of spending and tax increases, and neither will amount to solving our debt.

 

[Wiseacre]

A Question About the Fiscal Cliff Negotiations

Some democrats say that capping tax deductions won’t amount to anything substantive. That is, unless you cap charitable deductions. They further contest that capping charitable deductions would be bad for charities across the United States. My question is this; if you get a deduction for charitable giving, isn’t it in fact the government who paid for the charity and not the person making the donation? Is that charity or blind government incentivized welfare?

You are assuming it is the gov'ts money in the first place, which it is not. If a person makes a charitable donation and gets a deduction, the gov't didn't pay for nothin'.

 

[g5000]

A Question About the Fiscal Cliff Negotiations

Some democrats say that capping tax deductions won’t amount to anything substantive. That is, unless you cap charitable deductions. They further contest that capping charitable deductions would be bad for charities across the United States. My question is this; if you get a deduction for charitable giving, isn’t it in fact the government who paid for the charity and not the person making the donation? Is that charity or blind government incentivized welfare?

You are assuming it is the gov'ts money in the first place, which it is not. If a person makes a charitable donation and gets a deduction, the gov't didn't pay for nothin'.

Every tax expenditure has a cost to the taxpayer.

If you and I each earn $50,000 this year, say, and you get a deduction for one thing or another, I have to make up the difference. So while you get to keep more of your money, I have to cough up more of mine. I end up paying more of my money in taxes than you do.

Tax expenditures need to be flat-out banned. They are extremely regressive.

.

 

[Oldguy]

A Question About the Fiscal Cliff Negotiations

Some democrats say that capping tax deductions won’t amount to anything substantive. That is, unless you cap charitable deductions. They further contest that capping charitable deductions would be bad for charities across the United States. My question is this; if you get a deduction for charitable giving, isn’t it in fact the government who paid for the charity and not the person making the donation? Is that charity or blind government incentivized welfare?

You are assuming it is the gov'ts money in the first place, which it is not. If a person makes a charitable donation and gets a deduction, the gov't didn't pay for nothin'.

Good point.

In any case, the charitable giving deduction (whatever you may call it) is simply an encouragement for giving. It's an expression of our Will that charities be given to. Giving is deeply embedded in our national psyche and The People, through their elected representatives, have decided it's a worthy enough undertaking to warrant encouragement in the form of a tax deduction.

However, since it IS an expression of our Will, our Will may change over time and decide it's NOT worth a tax deduction. That's how our democracy works. The People are still supreme and The People will decide whether or not to continue the deduction.

 

[Koios]

A Question About the Fiscal Cliff Negotiations

Some democrats say that capping tax deductions won’t amount to anything substantive. That is, unless you cap charitable deductions. They further contest that capping charitable deductions would be bad for charities across the United States. My question is this; if you get a deduction for charitable giving, isn’t it in fact the government who paid for the charity and not the person making the donation? Is that charity or blind government incentivized welfare?

And even if it did, it's still stupid, if the taxes being raised impact mostly the middle class. It's just a regressive way to tax more, while being able to say "I didn't raise rates." Pure political smoke and mirrors.

Yeah, I don't think you answered my question either. If the government is refunding me for a donation to a charity then it is, in fact, blind government spending and not a charitable donation. And I don't think anyone in the middle class pay enough to charity to meet the cap. Nevertheless, Obama is offering more spending and tax increases, republicans are offering a reduction of spending and tax increases, and neither will amount to solving our debt.

They do not refund you. It merely reduces your taxable income, possibly.

 

[g5000]

Eliminate tax expenditures and everyone would be taxed at a lower rate. And instead of the government directing the flow of markets, the people can decide for themselves where the best place to spend their money is.

Oh noes! Can't have that!


.

 

[Oldguy]

Eliminate tax expenditures
.

What do you mean by that? Eliminate all government spending? That's what "tax expenditures" are.

 

[B. Kidd]

A Question About the Fiscal Cliff Negotiations

Some democrats say that capping tax deductions won’t amount to anything substantive. That is, unless you cap charitable deductions. They further contest that capping charitable deductions would be bad for charities across the United States. My question is this; if you get a deduction for charitable giving, isn’t it in fact the government who paid for the charity and not the person making the donation? Is that charity or blind government incentivized welfare?

Private donations pay for the majority of the charitys' revenue with a much smaller, as you put it, 'incentivization' via tax deductions from gov't for the donors. If charitable tax deductions become overcapped, then simple logic dictates that charitable donations will decrease and an already broke gov't will pick up the decrease, broaden the social safety net, thereby, speeding up the judgement day of default.
In reality, it is not a which comes first 'chicken or egg' proposition. Gov't saves money by not overcapping charitable donations.

 

[B. Kidd]

A Question About the Fiscal Cliff Negotiations

Some democrats say that capping tax deductions won’t amount to anything substantive. That is, unless you cap charitable deductions. They further contest that capping charitable deductions would be bad for charities across the United States. My question is this; if you get a deduction for charitable giving, isn’t it in fact the government who paid for the charity and not the person making the donation? Is that charity or blind government incentivized welfare?

You are assuming it is the gov'ts money in the first place, which it is not. If a person makes a charitable donation and gets a deduction, the gov't didn't pay for nothin'.

Gov't does pay by giving tax deductions for charitable contributions in the sense that less tax revenue comes into their coffers as opposed to overcapping or not granting tax deductions at all for these contributions.

 

[g5000]

Eliminate tax expenditures
.

What do you mean by that? Eliminate all government spending? That's what "tax expenditures" are.

No, tax expenditures are all the deductions, credits, loopholes, subsidies, whathaveyou, in the tax code which allow people to reduce their tax bill.

Tax expenditures currently exceed $1 trillion a year.

That $1 trillion in tax breaks has to come from somewhere else as a result. It means everyone else has to take up the extra load.

.

 

[g5000]

A Question About the Fiscal Cliff Negotiations

Some democrats say that capping tax deductions won’t amount to anything substantive. That is, unless you cap charitable deductions. They further contest that capping charitable deductions would be bad for charities across the United States. My question is this; if you get a deduction for charitable giving, isn’t it in fact the government who paid for the charity and not the person making the donation? Is that charity or blind government incentivized welfare?

Private donations pay for the majority of the charitys' revenue with a much smaller, as you put it, 'incentivization' via tax deductions from gov't for the donors. If charitable tax deductions become overcapped, then simple logic dictates that charitable donations will decrease and an already broke gov't will pick up the decrease, broaden the social safety net, thereby, speeding up the judgement day of default.
In reality, it is not a which comes first 'chicken or egg' proposition. Gov't saves money by not overcapping charitable donations.

It is not simple logic that if deductions are capped, donations will decrease.

Deductions are an attempt by special interests to get the government to direct money to them.

The government is taxing people for not donating to charity, for not buying the right refrigerator, for not being heterosexual, for not buying the right kind of car, and for not doing a whole host of behaviors placed into our tax code by special interests.

It was a very short leap to tax you for not buying the right health insurance.

Tax expenditures are a bogus and corrupt and disgusting scheme that need to be banned.

.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

A Question About the Fiscal Cliff Negotiations

Some democrats say that capping tax deductions won’t amount to anything substantive. That is, unless you cap charitable deductions. They further contest that capping charitable deductions would be bad for charities across the United States. My question is this; if you get a deduction for charitable giving, isn’t it in fact the government who paid for the charity and not the person making the donation? Is that charity or blind government incentivized welfare?

Neither... unless of course you subscribe to the notion that the Gubmint is entitled to 100% of your money and anything they don't take is a gift.

 

[B. Kidd]

Eliminate tax expenditures
.

What do you mean by that? Eliminate all government spending? That's what "tax expenditures" are.

No, tax expenditures are all the deductions, credits, loopholes, subsidies, whathaveyou, in the tax code which allow people to reduce their tax bill.

Tax expenditures currently exceed $1 trillion a year.

That $1 trillion in tax breaks has to come from somewhere else as a result. It means everyone else has to take up the extra load.

.

You overlook that loopholes, subsidies, and credits make up the vast amount of tax deductions as opposed to lil' ol' charitable deductions.
You paint with a broad brush and move the goalposts on the OP.

 

[g5000]

What do you mean by that? Eliminate all government spending? That's what "tax expenditures" are.

No, tax expenditures are all the deductions, credits, loopholes, subsidies, whathaveyou, in the tax code which allow people to reduce their tax bill.

Tax expenditures currently exceed $1 trillion a year.

That $1 trillion in tax breaks has to come from somewhere else as a result. It means everyone else has to take up the extra load.

.

You overlook that loopholes, subsidies, and credits make up the vast amount of tax deductions as opposed to lil' ol' charitable deductions.
You paint with a broad brush and move the goalposts on the OP.

No goalposts were moved. What was asked of charitable contribution deductions is true for all deductions.

No exceptions. ALL tax expenditures should be banned.

Every special interest believes an exception should be made for their "lil' ol' deduction" to get people to give their particular industry more money. And they all claim to have the best interests of the country at heart.

All those "lil' ol' deductions" add up to one very big trillion dollars a year.

Every day for the past decade, a "lil' ol' deduction" has been added to the tax code.

Every day.

That's how you creep up on a trillion dollars.


.

 

[B. Kidd]

No, tax expenditures are all the deductions, credits, loopholes, subsidies, whathaveyou, in the tax code which allow people to reduce their tax bill.

Tax expenditures currently exceed $1 trillion a year.

That $1 trillion in tax breaks has to come from somewhere else as a result. It means everyone else has to take up the extra load.

.

You overlook that loopholes, subsidies, and credits make up the vast amount of tax deductions as opposed to lil' ol' charitable deductions.
You paint with a broad brush and move the goalposts on the OP.

No goalposts were moved. What was asked of charitable contribution deductions is true for all deductions.

No exceptions. ALL tax expenditures should be banned.

Every special interest believes an exception should be made for their "lil' ol' deduction" to get people to give their particular industry more money. And they all claim to have the best interests of the country at heart.

All those "lil' ol' deductions" add up to one very big trillion dollars a year.

Every day for the past decade, a "lil' ol' deduction" has been added to the tax code.

Every day.

That's how you creep up on a trillion dollars.


.

Oh spare us!
According to you, the journey towards racking up 16+ trillion in debt begins with the few steps of giving tax deductions for charitable contributions?
That's a joke...............