How does this make sense?

[dellinger63]

Reduce or limit deductions for charity to be fair? Is it not the poor that benefit from charity or am I missing something? Is some poor family somewhere going to have to deal with less food from the pantry but can go to bed happy knowing the rich are no longer getting the deduction? I hope not but don't know how it will be avoided.

WASHINGTON (AP) - President Barack Obama is defending a budget idea that would reduce the tax deduction that wealthier families can take when they make charitable donations.

Obama says the plan is "the right thing to do."

Speaking at a prime-time news conference, the president said the change in tax policy would be realistic and fairer to lower-earning families that make charitable gifts but get a smaller tax deduction.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php...show_article=1

[Cannon Shell]

Only the sickness called liberalism would believe it is the "right thing" to intentionally injure charities in order to "stick it to the rich". Great time to decrease incentive for giving. The important thing is the giving, not the reasoning behind the giving.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Only the sickness called liberalism would believe it is the "right thing" to intentionally injure charities in order to "stick it to the rich". Great time to decrease incentive for giving. The important thing is the giving, not the reasoning behind the giving.

This money is supposed to fund health care reform.

If the important thing were truely the giving, then changing the percentage of charitable donations people who earn over $250,000 per year can deduct from 35% to 28% wouldn't decrease their giving at all.

But apparently the important thing for these folks isn't the giving, it's indeed the amount of tax deduction one gets from giving.

Don't worry, this one won't pass in the fall.

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Riot

This money is supposed to fund health care reform.

If the important thing were truely the giving, then changing the percentage of charitable donations people who earn over $250,000 per year can deduct from 35% to 28% wouldn't decrease their giving at all.

But apparently the important thing for these folks isn't the giving, it's indeed the amount of tax deduction one gets from giving.

Don't worry, this one won't pass in the fall.

Yea you all figured it out. The rich give for deductions. They love giving a million and getting $350K as a deduction. Great business and all. It gives them the feeling of being a legislator.

Sad part about this is Universities and Hospitals, large recipients of endowments and donations will take a hit but I know there are more important factors than Healthcare and Education to deal with right now. Like making it fair, tax-wise for low income people to give to charity. Talk about taking your eye off the ball!

[Riot]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

Yea you all figured it out. The rich give for deductions. They love giving a million and getting $350K as a deduction. Great business and all. It gives them the feeling of being a legislator.

Sad part about this is Universities and Hospitals, large recipients of endowments and donations will take a hit but I know there are more important factors than Healthcare and Education to deal with right now. Like making it fair, tax-wise for low income people to give to charity. Talk about taking your eye off the ball!

Yes, people in that earning level certainly do give for tax deductions, it's an important part of tax planning for that income bracket.

The estimate is that charitable donations would decrease by 1.7% (Obama team) to 3.7% worse case scenario (some independent org that monitors charitable deductions whose name I can't remember, I read it yesterday)

But again, there are already so many Dems and Repubs against this, it won't pass in the fall.

[SOREHOOF]

This way the Govt decides which charities get money, then raise everyone's taxes to pay for it. Appearantly the Govt's pet charities aren't getting enough $$ from the private sector.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by DaHoss9698

Maybe one of the "thinkers" here can explain this one. How will this effect the poor? If the rich aren't giving for the deductions, then why would this be a roadblock to donating?

If you decrease incentive for giving to charity....

you figure the rest out.

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

If you decrease incentive for giving to charity....

you figure the rest out.

LOL

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by DaHoss9698

Like Bob, I don't see people not giving because of the lack of deduction. We'll see. I understand what you are saying, and it makes sense. But I guess the human in me is hoping that people are donating because they want to and not for the deduction.

It is simple economics. Eliminate a % of tax incentive, eliminate a % of revenue to charity. That is how it works. If you make less money, you spend less money. Same concept.

The issues not only is the negative effect on charity, what troubles me is the reasoning given. To make it "fair" to lower income givers? Has ANYONE ever given to charity and felt ripped off because someone else may have given more and gets a tax benefit from it?

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Riot

This money is supposed to fund health care reform.

If the important thing were truely the giving, then changing the percentage of charitable donations people who earn over $250,000 per year can deduct from 35% to 28% wouldn't decrease their giving at all.

But apparently the important thing for these folks isn't the giving, it's indeed the amount of tax deduction one gets from giving.

Don't worry, this one won't pass in the fall.

So we are going to in effect take money from charity to pay for health care reform?

The truly important thing is to fund the charities, reasoning behind it should be irrelevant. Only the naive would believe that this wouldn't reduce the amount of money going to charity.

[timmgirvan]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Only the sickness called liberalism would believe it is the "right thing" to intentionally injure charities in order to "stick it to the rich". Great time to decrease incentive for giving. The important thing is the giving, not the reasoning behind the giving.

....and who said liberalism isn't a mental illness?