There’s a thread going on that asks for the moral implications of Obama’s playing at the margin with the charitable giving tax deduction. I was asked in that thread whether I really thought that someone could be offended by someone else’s tax deduction going to a church the first person didn’t like.
In my example, I was really just coming up with theoretical moral implications (or, at least perceived moral implications of charitable tax deductions. However, it got me thinking about the subject.
This article (You’ve requested a page that no longer exists | Stanford News) claims that most charitable giving doesn’t actually go to those most in need. Also, I know that when telemarketers call to ask you to give to a charity, that’s also very inefficient.
My questions are:
-
Is a tax deduction a valid way to encourage charitable giving? I may not like (in fact, I may be vehemently opposed to) the charity of your choice, and your charitable giving is, in some sense, directing my tax dollars that way.
-
Are charities efficient? More efficient than government organizations that try and accomplish similar results? A poster in the other thread mentioned how there is still poverty, even though the government has had the “War on Poverty” for a while, implying, I think, a failure on the part of the government. Well, it’s also a failure on the part of the charities trying to accomplish the same goals, isn’t it?
-
Are there any studies that suggest that money given to a charity more than makes up for the taxes lost through tax deductions?
I think I’m more in favor of eliminating the charitable deduction, since you should be willing to give to charities either way, right? It is charitable and all. If you give less, but the government has more, then there is more in the budget for whatever social programs, education funding, arts funding, what-have-you, that you were trying to accomplish with your donation. And, we all have a say in whether it’s a valid use of government spending, unlike charities, where we (as taxpayers) only get to set the general rules for establishing a charity.
However, if the government really is less efficient than charities, then I guess there is value lost. Maybe we should tighten up the rules on what a charity is:
- Must have % of the money go directly to the people/object you’ve set out to help.
- Must, I don’t know, directly substitute for government spending?
- Whatever else that would make it better.
Help me figure this out!