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.

[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?

[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!

[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.

[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.

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

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

you figure the rest out.

LOL

[Smooth Operator]

Like BO said last night, the Bush-Cheney-GOP-Asleep-at-the-Wheel-(Hell-COMATOSE-at-the-Wheel) Depression that we're in will have a much greater impact on charitable giving...

[timmgirvan]

Originally Posted by Smooth Operator

Like BO said last night, the Bush-Cheney-GOP-Asleep-at-the-Wheel-(Hell-COMATOSE-at-the-Wheel) Depression that we're in will have a much greater impact on charitable giving...

Yup...if you tell a lie often enough, people start to believe it!

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Smooth Operator

Like BO said last night, the Bush-Cheney-GOP-Asleep-at-the-Wheel-(Hell-COMATOSE-at-the-Wheel) Depression that we're in will have a much greater impact on charitable giving...

Yeah so he is going to help by making it less attractive to give. That makes perfect sense.

At least attempt to come up with an original response.

[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.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by 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.

Wow. That's .... imaginative.

[SOREHOOF]

Thank you.

[SOREHOOF]

Oops...I forgot. 95% of us are getting a tax break.

[GBBob]

There are plenty of "rich" who wouldn't donate a penney of their money to charity no matter what the deduction...But I bet the majority of the 39% bracket that donate will continue to no matter what the loss of deductions might be. You think Bill Gates does what he does for the deduction?

[Riot]

Originally Posted by GBBob

There are plenty of "rich" who wouldn't donate a penney of their money to charity no matter what the deduction...But I bet the majority of the 39% bracket that donate will continue to no matter what the loss of deductions might be. You think Bill Gates does what he does for the deduction?

I think not at all for Bill, but apparently for 1.7 to 3.5% it's a deal-breaker

My concern is that I don't think this is an appropriate place to get money for healthcare reforms, although I support some aggressive looking at and reworking of our healthcare system.

On a similar subject, apparently the Dems took 100 billion out of Obama's budget today (which matches what the Senate is doing to it)

Headlines today: stocks rising, as economic data tops forcasts. Durable good orders rising (very good news). Housing purchases of used homes up in February. February new home sales up. Mortgage applications up.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by SOREHOOF

Thank you.

You're welcome

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by GBBob

There are plenty of "rich" who wouldn't donate a penney of their money to charity no matter what the deduction...But I bet the majority of the 39% bracket that donate will continue to no matter what the loss of deductions might be. You think Bill Gates does what he does for the deduction?

"It's an important part of tax planning" Riot 3/25/09

Seriously to me it has nothing to do with being fair and everything to do with getting their hands on yet more money. Damn if they have to rob charities to do so. I also believe Gates deducted his charitable donations AND is wealthy enough to create his own charities with his wife manning the register. Still far better than the likes of Leon Panetta who formed the Leon & Sylvia Panetta Institute for Public Policy at Cal U and now gets paid by the school?