I don’t see it this way at all. Let’s say I earn 100k per year. I pay the tax in my income. Fine. Then, as a completely independent decision (and it is) I decided to give 500 bucks to my favorite charity. I send them a check. Now, if I tell the government I sent that check (and I don’t always) the government gives me a break on my taxes as a little gift for being a good guy. I don’t see that I have any right to complain about the size of that gift.
It’s horrible stupidity.
I just think it’s a poor choice of words. You’re not being taxed twice on the money, like you are when you buy a pack of gum - once on the income on that 65 cents, secondly on the sales of that 65 cents. When Montgomery Moneybags give $100 to his charity of choice, he’d be paying income tax on that $100, not the income tax as well as a “charitable giving for rich people” tax.
More semantics. The fact is that currently we pay no taxes on money donated to charities. Under Obama’s plan, the rich will pay 5%. That will be enough to dissuade at least a few people from giving as much as they otherwise would.
This is the biggest problem I have with the Democrats. Instead of letting people give their own money freely to help poor people, they want to tax the money, take their cut, then give it to “help” poor people with a million strings attached. It will get worse under this plan.
This is 100% right. And be aware that the rich tend to give more to non-profits related to education, health and science while the poor tend to donate to religon. (no cite righjt now, although I could try and dig one up, just a fact I recall from my Gaduate School days).
If you think that Income Tax = (Income Tax + Separate Tax), that’s your problem.
Under the proposed plan, tell me again how people are still not able to freely give of their own money.
This thread is absurd. The government has no moral obligation to subsidize charities by giving donations a tax break, but they do it anyway. The government loses money every time someone donates to charity and claims it on their taxes.
If I am not mistaken, there seems to be a strong sentiment among those criticizing Obama that using the tax code to incentivize rich people to donate to charity is a win-win thing, in that the rich save on taxes, and charities benefit.
Why shouldn’t the same logic apply to the estate tax? Conservatives reformed the estate tax to increase exemptions, thereby removing the incentive for the wealthy to leave a portion of their estates to charities. If one is really concerned about the wealthy giving to charities, do you all agree that those reforms were wrong-headed?
No. But I do know that I am provided with a rich array of things by this “organization” that I would not have independently of this “organization.” This whole idea of some nefarious “organization” that is somehow separate and distinct from us and is taking our money by force borders on delusional. It sure isn’t very much in keeping with American ideals and values. At least, not the ones I referred to earlier. And as much as I feel free to criticize it, I still regard the government as of the people, by the people and for the people. And the very “organization” that “takes your money by force” is the same organization that gives you the platform and support to make your money in the first place. Unless you are printing your own money, you owe your ability to obtain wealth to everyone else in this society (assuming you are an American), and you owe your share of making sure that it remains there for others to do the same.
Yes.
Stan, please keep your supercilious sighs to yourself. Posters are not oppressing you by asking you to explain what the fuck you’re talking about.
I guess I’m morally against any of my tax money going to charities, if you want to give everything you own, go ahead, but if you get a deduction then people that did not want to give have to anyway. For my money I would cancel all charitible deductions. OK, throw bricks at will.
You seem to be confusing tax deductions with tax credits. If you got a tax credit for giving $100 to a charity, that would cost the government $100, and cost you nothing. If you get a deduction for that $100, it means you don’t have to pay taxes on the $100 you choose not to spend on yourself.
From the government’s point of view, they lose the taxes on your $100, but that’s $100 they won’t have to spend on feeding the poor, fighting cancer, or whatever. They come out ahead, by about $66.
My reading of it is that nobody can deduct it completely, and the rich can deduct a little less. Is this incorrect?
Still tax money effectively going toward the charity of your choice.
Which I personally have no problem with. You choose the charities you like and I’ll choose the charities I like. It all evens out in the end.
Ed
I think that’s a great idea! I don’t understand the tax angle, though.
I guess the OP has already been thoroughly refuted, but I’d like to echo similar comments:
Taxes are bad. Boo hoo. If you earn X dollars, you’re required to pay Y dollars. We are all subject to this unfair practice, but there is justification that in general, the money is supposed to be for the common good; i.e., infrastructure and defense that individuals could not otherwise afford. There are inefficiecies and some abuses; grow up and deal with it.
If someone takes the money they have left over after having paid their taxes in order to perform some extra good, that’s fine by me, and I think that’s admirable. But their altruism or tithes to their god should not short-change the rest of us.
What we have is, essentially, wealthy people paying less taxes in order to specifically aid some other group that may or may not be using it for the common good.
Since morality isn’t actually noted in our constitution, could you justify why you think contributions to groups that hold themselves out to be charities should not be taxed?
Judging by the comments, do you also support churches not paying any property taxes on the billions of dollars worth of real estate they own? Can you justify, in a country which claims to separate church and state, why churches pay no taxes? Why should groups that practice symbolic cannibalism, genital mutilation or whose officiants anally rape altar boys and impregnate adolescent girls have a tax advantage over me? (Caveat: I’m pulling things from more than one major religion).
If you’re a sentient being, how do you feel about groups of people who worship sticks and who want to kill people over (or die defending) otherwise insignificant cities in the Eastern Mediterranean over what they interpret as an insult that they read about in a fairy tale from thousands of years ago? Truthfully, I don’t feel safe in a world where we encourage insane people to promulgate their bizarre stories of virgin births, metaphysical incest, miraculous candle holders and three-gods-in-one psychological paradoxes. Yet because of some continued irregularities in the tax code, I am effectively subsidizing the perpetuation of their insane beliefs. Why the hell shouldn’t they pay taxes?
If someone is going to donate to charity, they’re going to donate to charity. Let’s give them the benefit of being known as people who are determined to, without any financial incentive, help the less fortunate. I think we’d all win, and it would make the job easier for those gods who want to reward people who’ve donated to worthy causes in their lives. Is he good? Is he just trying to buy his way in? Did he pay for indulgences or donate through our proxies? Ah! He donated to charities that worship me without regard to the tax code! Winner!
This is already a defining feature of the income tax system! You are not taxed based on how much work you do, only on how much compensation you receive for doing that work. So you can already pay less taxes “in order to specifically aid some other group that may or may not be using it for the common good” - you do it constantly, every time your employer profits from your work. You don’t pay income tax for his earnings off your work, only your earnings. All the tax deduction does is treat indirect donations of time to charity (by working in your area of competence, then donating your compensation) the same as direct donations of time to charity.
So make them pay taxes - that doesn’t mean you need to tar everyone else with the same brush.