OBAMA SOAKS THE RICH: CHURCHES, DAY CARE, HOMELESS SHELTERS

[frawin]

OBAMA SOAKS THE RICH: CHURCHES, DAY CARE, HOMELESS SHELTERS



President Obama's glib assertion that his reduction in tax deductions will not reduce donations is absurd.  His pathetic defense at his press conference - that he would still give a $100 dollar check to charity even if he only got $11 less of tax deduction from it was both disingenuous and beside the point.

And his comment that his reduced deduction would only impact one or two percent of the nation misses the point that it is these folks who are doing almost half of the donating.

In 2006, the most recent year for which data is available, four million taxpayers had adjusted gross incomes of $200,000 or more.  They comprised 3% of the tax returns, made 31% of the income, but donated 44% of all charitable contributions.  Together, they provided charity with $81 billion in that year.

Obama's plan will cost them $10 billion in extra taxes on the income they allocated to charitable donations.  How can the president be so glibly certain that they will not curtail their charitable contributions by a like amount or even more?

Imagine all the harm Obama's program will cause.  Churches will be hit most hard.  They account for the largest share of charitable donations, but universities, disease research, hospitals, soup kitchens, and cultural institutions will also be hard hit.  So will international relief efforts that funnel aid abroad through churches or directly.

It is totally dishonest for Obama to pretend that his curtailment of these deductions won't hurt the poor.  It will most directly impact them since most of the charities Obama is hurting focus on helping the impoverished.

This proposal is not about saving money.  It is about controlling it.  By, in effect, transferring at least $11 billion a year from private philanthropy to government spending, Obama empowers the public sector at the expense of the voluntary one.

President Obama's recommended reduction in the tax deduction for charitable giving reflects his fundamental belief that only the government can or should help the poor.  He wants to keep the impoverished directly dependent on the government - and the Democratic Party - for their daily bread.

The voluntary sector has always been the backbone of compassion in the United States.  Our charitable donations dwarf those of any other country. And our system of tax deductions for giving permits us to decide what charities are worthy of our generosity - a decision Obama will transfer to the politicians under his program.

[pam]

   There are a lot of people who just give and don't take a deduction you know so those numbers are only accurate as far as they go.

[sixdogsmom]

I agree with you Pam, many many folks give without a look toward deductions. They give because it is the right thing to do and there is a need to be fulfilled. Deductions play a very little in the generosity shown by most Americans.

[ELK@KC]

There is very little in donations that is given without a deduction taken, when you consider the Billions of dollars that are given. When a donor gives 10-20-30 or even a 100 million dollars to Universities, Hospials, Medical research, etc they take a deduction.

[sixdogsmom]

And most of the wealthy donate with an eye toward the deduction; that is if they want to avoid a certain tax level, then they will donate until that level has been achieved. This will result in MORE donations not less to achieve the same level of deductions. That is, using Franks numbers, 111$ would be donated to achieve the same level of deduction as 100$ got before. Not such a bad deal for recipients.

[Catwoman]

There is very little in donations that is given without a deduction taken, when you consider the Billions of dollars that are given. When a donor gives 10-20-30 or even a 100 million dollars to Universities, Hospials, Medical research, etc they take a deduction.

Well said, Frank and Elk.  I wish I could say that this would end up with people giving more in order to achieve the same deduction but that would be a losing proposition for the donor...And the wealthy don't stay that way by engaging in losing propositions.

[Diane Amberg]

I haven't taken a donation deduction in many years. I make too much, but don't make enough to make the jump to the big dogs. Maybe when I win the lottery.

[Wilma]

Donation deduction for tax purposes plays no part on my tax returns.  My exemptions and personal deductions wipe out any taxable income that I have.  Furthermore, I do another income tax return that doesn't have enough deductions to exceed the standard deduction, so their contributions (that they have proof of) play no part on their tax return.

I think that this is true of most of the lower middle income people.  Still, I am sure that they will continue to donate to whatever they have been donating to without thought as to whether or not it will lower their taxable income.

[ELK@KC]

Of course it is not going to affect the taxpayers/nontaxpayers that cannot or do not itemize, the bulk of the donations to tax deductible charities is done by the wealthy for many reasons. Obama was aiming this at the big donors, not those that can't deduct their donations.

[pam]

Of course it is not going to affect the taxpayers/nontaxpayers that cannot or do not itemize, the bulk of the donations to tax deductible charities is done by the wealthy for many reasons. Obama was aiming this at the big donors, not those that can't deduct their donations.

Methinks you missed my point.....I know of a few who would be considered "rich" and COULD but DON"T. Probably more than you think......the ones who care if they can deduct it aren't doin it for the right reason anyway.

Obama is doin a lot of stuff that is gonna cause a lot of problems and he is doin some stuff that COULD work out ....

If I bend over will somebody just kick me square in the ass for even comin into politics again?? Seriously..........