Comments on: Keep the charitable tax deduction Thu, 21 Jul 2016 07:57:19 +0000 hourly 1 By: Bluemage Fri, 12 Feb 2010 00:59:35 +0000 THE TRUTH ABOUT TAXES

As taxes go up the rich have less money to invest with. Less money to invest with results in less jobs created and increases the incentive for businessmen in America to send jobs overseas. I know being one of them. If my whole business goes over there what does that do for America?

The “smart” government knows that they must give the wealthy incentives to keep business growing in their respective countries. To do that the government offers tax-breaks to them as a reward for producing jobs. In this case the charity donations tax deduction. Reducing the charity donation tax deduction will force me to give less to charity thereby forcing me to seek other tax shelters and reduce costs of doing business.

The working man however is affected by emotion and rightfully so since employees are heavily taxed. This is because sadly our tax laws are written in the favor of those who are rich and that is because the rich produce jobs. Therefore you have people saying the rich shouldn’t get tax-breaks and people shouldn’t base their charitable giving based on tax deductions.

The only way to solve the tax problem in america is to go back to a national sales tax. This is how we got of out debt (thanks to the wisdom of Alexander Hamilton) before and if only the right people would listen we do so again.

May the Lord bless all who read this comment

By: Ben Sun, 12 Apr 2009 13:26:55 +0000 She is right on. I don’t understand where some many of the repsonses here are coming from. Maybe someone will explain why someone should have to pay tax on money they gave away to charity. I am middle class and give about 15% to charity so this will not affect me, but I think it’s foolish to say that it would not affect those who give high percentages of their income to charities. If there is a cap, then it would prevent someone from giving high percentages since they would still suffer the tax burden of money they gave away.

By: Michael Ham Wed, 08 Apr 2009 12:10:03 +0000 I’m not a big fan of this writer, she’s a biased republican apologist and that needs to be taken into account when you read these things.

That being said she’s dead on. ANYTHING that raises taxes on a public where the average homeowner pays 30% in taxes/fees one way or another should eb screamed out against. People give what they afford, they’re taxed than there’s less they can afford.

The good thing is it doesn’t seem like most of the commenters are republican apologists, hopefully you’re all RON PAUL SUPPORTERS!!! ;)

By: J Johnson Tue, 07 Apr 2009 14:32:21 +0000 The efficiency of charitable giving and the benefits procured from voluntary effort are always much higher then the inefficiency of the government dole out. There are more social security administrators then social security recipients. Charitable organizations have cheerful volunteers(their free time). Government has employees. The biggest welfare recipients are government workers and large corporations. Individual welfare recipients have no personal involvement from the community to change their lives into more productive individuals, and thus creates idle individuals leaning more toward crime and counterproductive behavior.

Truth be known, the entire motive of politicians for increasing the tax burden has nothing to do with needed funds. They have a central bank to produce as many Federal Reserve Notes as they need. The motive is for creating a higher demand for those Federal Reserve Notes so people don’t resort to using private currencies. It is one more way to subsidize the behemoth financial system we have forced upon us. On top of that, directing the tax increases into things like this are for the intent of transferring purchasing power from charitable organizations to the corporations and financial institutions that lobby our government for more control.

By: Matthew L. Mon, 06 Apr 2009 13:03:26 +0000 The motive behind this change should be quite obvious. The current administration would prefer that they, not the people, be the primary disseminators of charity. Obama and his fellows would much prefer that society be even more dependent upon them than upon the private sector. To be frank, this administration views private giving as a threat to its power.

By: Joe Fri, 03 Apr 2009 20:54:16 +0000 Texas Mike,
Your government run Medicare (,Medicaid ,) and Social Security services aren’t very good examples of why charitable giving shouldn’t be supported. Medicare & Medicaid don’t pay enough to cover costs, they are months behind in payments & do not give out payments under a certain dollar amount (meaning that one or two doctor office will never get paid for seeing Medicare patients). And all of the money for Social Security has been borrowed against to never be returned. I just hope no one is counting on it.

By: Joe Fri, 03 Apr 2009 20:49:51 +0000 Reducing the deduction for charitable giving is one of the scariest and most rediculous suggestions I’ve heard in a long time. Charitable giving allows individuals and organizations to exercise some control over where their money goes, unlike our tax dollars which are going to bailout the irresponsible corporations and individuals of the world. I am not rich by any stretch of the imagination, but I do recognize that we need wealthy people to do greater things than the average American can do. I fear that President Obama and many Americans not only lack an appreciation for all that charitable giving provides, but also that many despise the wealthy.

By: Joe Fri, 03 Apr 2009 20:45:23 +0000 Besides the bottom line that there will be less money donated to charity (besides whether or giving for a tax break is right reason), there are differences between government or charitable spending that should be considered in evaluating the reason to provide more or less incentives for charitable giving.
Which finds more of the money get used for overhead? It would useful to know the efficiency or percentage of the dollar spent by the two different systems. (This should be a broad study & not a case one).
The second is what are their success rates? Why not choose to keep supporting a cause that is three times more successful than the other. Or in the case where they both work well, support both of them, which creates a better chance of continuing success.

By: mentally taxed Fri, 03 Apr 2009 17:35:07 +0000 Lets remember one thing. The top 1 percent of taxpayers (AGI over $388,806) earned approximately 22.1 percent of the nation’s income (as defined by AGI), yet paid 39.9 percent of all federal income taxes. I am not lucky enough to be one of these people, but think that their tax burden is probably high enough already.

That means the top 1 percent of tax returns paid about the same amount of federal individual income taxes as the bottom 95 percent of tax returns.

Fairness is not really part of the equation here. This is not the lower income earners “subsidizing” the ability for the “rich” to give to their pet causes. This is the top earners subsidizing everyone else, and then getting some very minimal tax advantage for giving away some of their income.

If this is really going to change, it’s not about the tax rate, but what is considered a “charity”, which congress also controls.

Check my facts at 50.html

By: dan Fri, 03 Apr 2009 17:34:02 +0000 Since wealthy individuals tend to give less to charity as a percentage of their income than do poor people. We should eliminate that tax deduction for charitable giving altogether while at the same time giving every American an equivalent tax reduction. The effect on taxes would be a wash – the amount collected by eliminating the deduction would be off set by the reduced taxes everyone would pay. This would be like a pay raise to poor people, who, since they give a higher percentage of their income to charities, would actually increase the total charitable giving. Of course the issue is all about control. The charities supported by the poor tend not to be places like Yale or Harvard, and more like the local soup kitchen.