So let’s say I donate $100 to a kitten shelter, and then go and write a $100 charitable contribution off on my taxes. Is it fair to describe me as “generous,” “giving,” or “good” because of it? It seems like most people would describe somebody who donates to kitty shelters as “generous” even if they’re not really giving anything that wouldn’t already be (effectively) pre-spent money on their part.
Note that I’m not arguing that giving money to a kitten shelter is morally negative, or bankrupt; I’m merely saying that giving 50 bucks to save kittens is no better or worse than giving it to the IRS if you’re going to write it off.
Now, there are a few exceptions, in my mind. If you’re aware of the fact that you’re basically reallocating you taxes and donate to, say, a relief organization in Africa because you feel the US doesn’t give enough African aid money and you want to essentially “force” them to, then I’d say that’s actually a positive use. However, that thought process doesn’t seem to enter into most people’s heads – it seems to be two separate thoughts:
“Those poor kids in Africa, I should send money!”
“Hey, I can write this off!”
with no real acceptance that you’re basically just telling the government that their money is in another castle. A governmentally recognized and approved castle, granted, but still out of the hands of the government.
It’s certainly not as bad as slacktivism (I posted this video on Facebook! Mission fucking accomplished, go me!), but it seems to me that if you’re just spending the money that normally would go to the government on puppy aid that it’s not really morally any better or worse than just sending the IRS 50 dollars (except in the case outlined above). Maybe “morally neutral” isn’t quite correct – wanting to help kittens, puppies, or starving kids is still good in intention, it just seems a little bit flat compared to giving 50 dollars and NOT writing it off on your taxes.
Even at higher pay scales, a guy who donates $100,000 to a food bank seems more like he’s going for good publicity if he writes it off, rather than looking genuinely altruistic as he would were he to give it out of pocket with no intention to write it off.
That’s not how writing things off works. Writing off $100 doesn’t mean your tax bill is $100 lower, it means your taxable income is $100 lower - so it’s more like sending $80 dollars of yours to a charity, and $20 that you would otherwise send to the IRS (adjust numbers as tax bracket indicates). It costs more than not donating.
I’m aware that’s how it works, I was simplifying where I probably shouldn’t have :/, though I didn’t do the math to check the proportions. They weren’t as high as I expected (for some reason I thought deducting $100 of taxable income was closer to 100 bucks to the IRS than 100 bucks that were yours). I guess that makes sense now that I know the proportions are the other way around.
Another consideration. Lets say you think bombs and missiles are bad mykay? And puppies are good mkay? So, you say, those bomb building bastards aren’t getting my money, I’m gonna make sure those starving puppies in China get it instead.
So, you can argue that you are doing more moral things with your money by choosing these actions.
In some circumstances you may save money by donating some if you are close enough to a lower tax bracket but that really takes some planning as you need to donate before the end of the year usually, though there was at least one exception made for disaster relief a few years ago.
As if it is generous or not, it would solely depend on one’s motivation for giving. They support the cause and give, then follow the procedures that follow that allow deductibility then that would be generous as I see it. If they give because they see it as a way to save money with the IRS, and that is their only reason then no it would not be generous IMHO.
Like so many things, actions don’t tell the story, and are very easy to misjudge.
The kitten shelter would certainly say you’re generous and that has to count for something. Generosity means “readiness or liberality in giving” or “freedom from meanness or smallness of mind or character” and this is certainly giving, so yes, this is an indication that you are generous. (And I don’t think writing it off on your taxes counts as smallness of mind.) I don’t think you can sensibly consider charitable donations and paying your taxes as morally equivalent. One is legally required and the other is not.
As noted, that’s not how it works.
Is that guy supposed to care what you think about his motivations? This seems unfair to me: the guy gives $100,000 to a charity that will help people who need it, and you’re saying he deserves no credit unless he is also willing to report the greatest possible amount of taxable income?
It’s generous either way. The donated food tastes the same and the donated medicine works just as well. Or the orphanage stays open or what have you. Actions can be misleading, but it’s also easy to go off track by judging people by what you think is in their hearts instead of what they are actually doing and how it affects others.
Even in that case I don’t think it works. Since the tax brackets are marginal, only the amount above the bracket will be taxed at a higher rate. So even if deductions drop you into a lower bracket will still just reduce your tax bill at most by an amount equal to the taxes paid on amount you deducted.
To the OP, I think that there is a argument to be made that part of generosity is sacrifice. I would say that a poor person who gave every penny he saved to support children in Africa was more generous ($10,000) was more generous to people in Africa than is Bill Gates having his secretary write up a check for $15,000.
Because your good acts only count if you suffer while making them, and the more you suffer the better. Anything less is merely being nice. Jesus, and the theologians who followed him, took the basic Jewish attitude toward suffering (it is to be expected) to a whole new level (it is absolutely vital).
There’s a difference between a donation costing you and causing you to suffer. Bill Gates isn’t going to appreciably suffer by donating a ton of money to good causes, but he would still be generous if he (for example) donated $1M anonymously to a cause he believed in.
Someone else, might use a donation to further his own business ends, let’s say by getting free advertising of some sort, or making his business appear more desirable to customers. That person, since he’s tallying up the take at the end of the transaction, is less generous than the person who gives without expecting a return on his investment. Though, as has been mentioned, charities run on money, not generosity.
Not writing off the gift doesn’t make you more generous, except to the tax man who has offered you a lower tax bill, which you refused to accept.
No, there isn’t. Or rather it is a matter of degree. If something doesn’t cost you anything, you aren’t really giving anything away.
If I donate to some worthy cause, I am saying that someone else’s needs are more important than mine. If I didn’t need whatever I donate, or if I couldn’t keep it anyway, that is not the same at all.
Although I think you meant this as a joke, I think this is a key point. The fact that the government gives you tax breaks for donations is because the government generously supports your generosity and gives you encouragement by not having you pay the full amount. In fact it reminds me of the public television matching contributions. If you donate $80 the feed the children the government will kick in an additional $20. Of course given the way the tax code is set up it supports generosity from the rich more than the poor but that’s another debate.
I disagree with you that the food tastes the same or the medicine is as effective etc., and since you brought it up it is your burden to support your statement - though I’m not going to ask you for a cite, just to agree to disagree because I believe I have experienced the difference in food taste related to this scenario, so I couldn’t accept your cite anyway.
I do believe that Jesus spoke truth when it was reported that he said that the widow who gave not much in monetary terms gave much more then those who gave more in those terms. Her little that she gave, because it was from the heart actually helped far more then the rest.
So basically I disagree with most of your posting.
I say donate money when and where you’re inspired to do so and take full advantage of any tax benefits available to you. Furthermore, in Arizona we have bottom-line refundable tax liability credits for donations to schools and working-poor charities (donate $300, the state takes $300 off your bill) and I feel just fine using them. I write a check around christmastime, my kids’ school gets paid, I get reimbursed mid-February. It’s an incredible rate of return for a minute of my time and a few pennies in interest.
I’m not going to agree to disagree with that, kanicbird. What you’re saying is nonsense. People who are getting help from charities usually don’t know where the funding for their home or food came from and they can’t know what is in the heart of the people who made the donation that made the aid possible. A gift from one person to another might be another story.
I didn’t expect you to make such a concession, and yes i do see you used the word might.
I don’t believe it’s the knowing where it came from (as in the widow’s example in scriptures the people it went to help didn’t know her), but the way I view it is the flow of love that can be felt and makes the difference. And to me love is God, so it is God living in the person giving that makes it’s way to the receiver and touches their heart (of that person is open to love).
But I will give you in a charity situation there is a mix of intentionsand intensity of intentions and the receiver gets a mix, so it will most likely not be as ‘pure’ of a experience that can happen when it is one on one giving/receiving.
I never said that – if you’re walking on your way to work, some guy falls down and you pick him up, I don’t think it’s not generous even if you’re not going out of your way, strictly, to help him. There’s no suffering involved there. I’m not even keen to argue the person who helps somebody when they’re late is better than the person who helps someone when they have free time to spare.
My point is more that your taxes go to many things – schools, roadwork, stimulus programs, research grants etc. Yes, bombs, missiles, and guns too. When you deduct taxable income, you have no say, you can’t write in and say “Please deduct this $20 I’m going to not end up paying from the defense fund, you can’t hug orphans with nuclear arms.” No, they’re still going to spend money on missiles regardless, so while you’ve deprived a little bit of money for guns and missiles, you’ve also deprived a bit of money for schools and roads too (and I realize this is a tad handwavey and oversimplifies a lot).
It’s not the fact that the giver is or isn’t sacrificing something, it’s that they’re also depriving other worthy programs (and a few potentially unworthy ones) by deducting it from their taxes, whereas just footing the bill would fund education AND African orphanages for burn victims with PTSD that rescue kittens – especially if the person donating the money can afford it.
It’s a total handwave. If your taxed income isn’t taxed, you’re not paying taxes on anything - you’re not funding missiles and refusing to pay for child care.
It’s their money. Are you un-generous unless you give away all your money to charity or taxes and fund everything?