Obama and Charities

[Perchoutofwater]

Obama has stated he wants to reduce the deduction on charitable donations. It appears as though Mr. Obama gave just under 6.4% of his income to charity, and that great patriot Biden gave less than 1% to charity in 2008. I guess they figure they were already elected, as it is much less than he gave in the few years following up to the election even though his income was significantly higher. Why does Obama hate charities?

 

I guess I was right when I said conservatives are generous with their own money, where as liberals are generous with other people's money.

 

Putting my tinfoil hat on, I wonder if Obama doesn't secretly hope that most charities fail so he will have an excuse to expand government even more to fill the void left by the charities that are going to collapse as a result of his proposed tax increases and reduced deductions on those that typically contribute the most to charities.

 

ETA: I guess it is patriotic to give money when the government forces you too (unless you are an Obama appointee), but it isn't patriotic to give it of your own free will.

Edited April 17, 2009 by Perchoutofwater

[moneymakers]

Rev wright has taught him well.

[Jackass]

People who donate to charities are suckers.

[Double Agent]

People who donate to charities are suckers.

 

Good point.

[MikesVikes]

People who donate to charities are suckers.

 

Nice one Jackass.

 

I've always wanted to reply to your post and this looks like a good time to me.

[WaterMan]

I'm going to donate my boat when the charity market looks better.

[CaP'N GRuNGe]

That Obama guy hates the sick and the poor. Some messiah.

[yo mama]

Charity is the voluntary act of giving to those in need because you think its the right thing to do. So its not really charity if you require a tax deduction before you're willing to part with property, now is it?

 

It is my understanding that Obama's proposal would only affect married couples making more than $250,000, and individuals making more than $200,000. So instead of getting a 33% or 35% deduction for charitable donations, Americans in the top income brackets would "only" get roughly a 28% deduction. I suppose that will keep some people from giving. But if they instead keep the cash then that amount is effectively subject to income tax at the highest rate applicable to that individual (e.g., say 33%).

 

Bottom line: if taxation is the sole motivating factor for would-be givers, I don't think they realize that giving will still result in less tax than not giving. To the extent some are merely bemoaning that this particular benefit isn't quite what it used to be, newsflash: that's true for pretty much everybody across the board these days. If you're making a quarter-mil a year or more in this economy complaining about a 20% haircut in your charitable contribution deduction isn't going to garner much sympathy from most folks. Not from me, anyway... and this change would affect me.

 

Now, if you want to complain about the REASON for Obama's proposed change (i.e., to raise an estimated $179.8 billion over the next 10 years to fund his out-of-control spending) then let me know where the bull session is going to be, I'll bring a twelve-pack, and we can grumble about that together until the cows come home. 'Cause that's a different story all together.

Edited April 17, 2009 by yo mama

[Perchoutofwater]

Charity is the voluntary act of giving to those in need because you think its the right thing to do. So its not really charity if you require a tax deduction before you're willing to part with property, now is it?

 

It is my understanding that Obama's proposal would only affect married couples making more than $250,000, and individuals making more than $200,000. So instead of getting a 33% or 35% deduction for charitable donations, Americans in the top income brackets would "only" get roughly a 28% deduction. I suppose that will keep some people from giving. But if they instead keep the cash then that amount is effectively subject to income tax at the highest rate applicable to that individual (e.g., say 33%).

 

Bottom line: if taxation is the sole motivating factor for would-be givers, I don't think they realize that giving will still result in less tax than not giving. To the extent some are merely bemoaning that this particular benefit isn't quite what it used to be, newsflash: that's true for pretty much everybody across the board these days. If you're making a quarter-mil a year or more in this economy complaining about a 20% haircut in your charitable contribution deduction isn't going to garner much sympathy from most folks. Not from me, anyway... and this change would affect me.

 

Now, if you want to complain about the REASON for Obama's proposed change (i.e., to raise an estimated $179.8 billion over the next 10 years to fund his out-of-control spending) then let me know where the bull session is going to be, I'll bring a twelve-pack, and we can grumble about that together until the cows come home. 'Cause that's a different story all together.

 

I resent your comments regarding needing a deduction to give to charity. Frankly I thought you were smarter than that. I give to charity because I want to, and can afford to. I'd come out cash ahead by not giving. The deduction does not benefit the tax payer, it benefits the charities by allowing the tax payer to give more. For some reason you liberals think think tax payers make money on these deductions, that is just stupid.

 

Do you not see that the tax will reduce what the charities get? Do you think people are going to have more to give to charities to make up for what the government will be taking? It is really going to be a double whammy, because Obama is going to raise the top tax bracket, and get rid of deductions for charities.

 

Trying to make it a simple as possible. Say I make $1,000,000 a year (I don't it's a nice round number) and lets say my fixed costs (mortgages, cars, state and local taxes, food, etc...) are $508,904 based on the current tax code, I could set aside $250,000 for charity and with a tax bill of $241,904.

 

Now I'm not exactly sure what Obama is going to do to the lower brackets. Is the 33% bracket going to just be done away with? I know he's saying that anything over $200,000 is to be taxed at 39.6%. Since I don't know how he's going to do this, and since I'm lazy I'll just use the 1999 tax brackets that had a top rate of 39.6% (though it should be noted it is on anything over $280,150 instead of $200,000 that Obama wants). So I make the same $1,000,000. I have the same fixed cost of $508,904. For now we assume that we aren't loosing the deduction for charitable donations, we are just resetting to 1999 tax code. My taxes would now be $297,432, my fixed costs are the same, so my charitable donation is going to be reduced from $250,000 to $193,664. So just by changing the tax code back to 1999, Obama would reduce the charitable giving in this example by $56,336. Obama has just cut charitable donations by 22.6%, and that is provided he doesn't mess with deductions. If he starts messing with deductions you are taking another 7% from what would be going to charity. Obama's tax plan will basically reduce the amount of money charities receive by roughly 30%.

 

Now you know as well as I do, a deduction is not a credit. There are some idiots that think that deductions, benefit the tax payer, when in reality deduction benefit the charities. By giving to charity, I don't end up with more money in my pocket, I end up with less. The deduction just allows me to give more.

[bushwacked]

It appears as though Mr. Obama gave just under 6.4% of his income to charity

 

What a prick.