Good post.

Charities played a disproportionate role as victims of the crimes of Madoff and Sanford. It is frustrating to see them get hit again in a very different way.

Elie Wiesel's Foundation for Humanity was essentially wiped out. That is just one of the organizations that suffered.

__________________
My good blade carves the casques of men,
My tough lance thrusteth sure,
My strength is as the strength of ten,
Because my heart is pure.

"Sir Galahad," by Alfred, Lord Tennyson (1834)

Do you have anything of substance to say?

And, yes, I can stop assuming things about you, but I don't see the point, since you've said nothing to demonstrate that I'm wrong in my assumptions.

Nuh-uh, I don't care what you say because I like the label I've picked for myself is hardly the stuff that changes minds.

__________________
"Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have... The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases."

-Thomas Jefferson

From what I understand, conservatives donate substantially more to private charity than liberals, on average.

__________________
"Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have... The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases."

-Thomas Jefferson

When you said folks mainly use it as a tax loophole those are the ones i meant, the ones who generally do it anyway for the same purpose.

Any generous person will try donate anyway.

But the removal of the deduction will leave the average (rich) tax dodger scrambling for different ways to find deductables, leaving the charities screwed.

__________________
The George W Bush Store:

http://georgewbushstore.com/

Recieving from charity, no different than recieving from welfare, creates a class of perptually dependant people.

Give a man a fish, he eats for a day, teach him to fish, he eats for a lifetime.

__________________
All things serve The Beam

There aren't many prayers quoted here for the good reason that this is a political forum.

But this series of responsive evening prayers from The Book of Common Prayer is the answer to why we must have charities: for those who can't fish.

For anyone who happens on the very odd chance to know the BCP, this is the alternative liturgy.



O Lord, hear our Prayer.

For all who labour with heart and hand and brain, in the service of the common weal we beseech thee.

O Lord, hear our Prayer.

For those who give liberally of their substance, and who remember the poor, we beseech thee.

O Lord, hear our Prayer.

For those who defend us from wrong and oppression, at home and abroad, by sea and land and air, we beseech thee.

O Lord, hear our Prayer.

For all fathers and mothers and children; and for the preservation of home life, we beseech thee.

O Lord, hear our Prayer.

For widows and orphans; for the lonely and the desolate, we beseech thee.

__________________
My good blade carves the casques of men,
My tough lance thrusteth sure,
My strength is as the strength of ten,
Because my heart is pure.

"Sir Galahad," by Alfred, Lord Tennyson (1834)

You don't care about the rational argument another poster presented to you? What a surprise! Any tax change that creates a disincentive to give to charity or removes an incentive to give to charity technically hurts charities.

I could post a thread about how terrible it is that people who donate at least one dollar to charity X (let's say it supports the handicapped) in a given year aren't totally exempt from paying taxes owed for that year, you'd likely say it's silly, and I can reply "[s]o you think it's a good idea to harm handicapped charities, and thus hurt the handicapped? Okay." Or I could get crafty and say "so you hate the handicapped?"

Of course, I think you'll agree that this line of reasoning is ridiculous since the proposition I presented above would create an absurd loophole that will be exploited by just about everyone who pays taxes since paying that $1 a year would be so much easier, and the government would get no revenue besides donations and fines.

IMO the government shouldn't be in the business of social engineering by taxing alcohol and tobacco more, while arbitrarily exempting charitable donations.

Learn to read, dude.

It's not arbitary. Charitable donations are considered good for the society at large and encourage those to help others. Alcohol and tobacco aren't generally considered "good" for society.

Social engineering is encouraging people who can't afford mortgages to get mortgages and thereby fuck the rest of the nation. It's not saying, if you give monitary help to others, you'll be rewarded.

__________________
Obama Low Effort Wealth Spread. I can't believe it's not earned!

most of the people in this income range pay taxes quarterly and will just lower the check they write so the government never sees it.

fear not though, the 0 plans to increase uncle sam's charitable giving but to po folks only, re-buying those votes that have already been bought many times over.

screw the symphony, Red Cross, what have you.

__________________
Socialism doesn't create a rising tide that lifts all boats. It drains the lake and teaches the boat riders not to help themselves by rowing.

Jesus loves you, allah wants you dead

"Every government interference in the economy consists of giving an unearned benefit, extorted by force, to some men at the expense of others."

Ayn Rand

The charities will be fine. I imagine only the wealthy people who were donating to charity based on the tax break, instead of the kindness of their heart, will stop giving.


I'm more concerned about turning back the tax break for mortgage interest. That one directly impacts the incentive to buy a new house. Assuming that people are qualified to buy a house, that removes one of the incentives that is currently there.

They need to be adding incentives (besides stupid ARM loans with loose qualifications, of course) to buy houses.... not removing incentives. I don't think it justifies calling the president a f$#tard, but I do wonder what they're thinking. They need to be cutting more programs/departments/purchases before they start cutting incentives.

__________________

The world could use more Stan Ovshinsky's

I don't think that people making more than $250K need to be incentivized in order to own property, nor do I think that people in that demographic are going to be likely to turn to ARMs. I don't agree that they should get less of a deduction for mortgage interest, but that's more out of my general desire to see taxes and spending both lowered across the board.

__________________
"Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have... The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases."

-Thomas Jefferson

Sure, most everyone that makes over $250K per year owns their own house..and a nice one at that. But consider the guy who wants to buy property for investment purposes....

Every house that comes off the market decreases the excess inventory and helps the housing market in general. It doesn't really matter if the person buying that house is a millionaire or if it's a young blue collar family.

I mentioned ARMs in the context of proposing new, separate house buying incentives in general (not something that would only apply to $250K+ people)... as one thing that should obviously not be done.

__________________

The world could use more Stan Ovshinsky's

Well, like I said, I'm not arguing for the deduction for 250K'ers to come off the books. I just don't think that it's going to be much of a problem for the housing market. Someone in a position to buy and earn money from investment properties probably isn't being made or broken by getting a small write-off (assuming AMT or whatever else doesn't kick in) on the investment properties for interest. I mean, they already pay higher property tax for that, and they do it anyway. Not to mention that I believe the loan terms are different for investment properties (do they even qualify for the mortgage interest deduction?)

__________________
"Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have... The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases."

-Thomas Jefferson

Oh no the individuals who set up foundations for their tax dodging purposes are going to be significantly harmed! Who's looking out for the tax cheats?

__________________
Is our children learning? -George W. Bush

"I think—tide turning—see, as I remember—I was raised in the desert, but tides kind of—it's easy to see a tide turn—did I say those words?"—Washington, D.C., June 14, 2006

"[T]he illiteracy level of our children are appalling."—Washington, D.C., Jan. 23, 2004