Charitable giving is NOT equivalent to paying taxes.

[cthulu2016]

There is no categorical difference between giving to charity and buying a jet ski. It is what you want to do with your money.

You choose to give to charity for whatever reason you choose to give to charity.

It is an expression of individual priorities. That doesn't mean there is anything wrong with charitable giving, of course. It only means that it is what one chooses to do to manifest their priorities.

So this whole thing of conflating Romney's tax payments and his charitable (sic) giving is demented.

The thing about paying taxes is that it is not an expression of your moral values, your sense of self, your ego, your priorites... your tax money goes to what the American electorate decides to do with the money.

If you are handy with that old devil Arithmetic it is easy to see that all taxpayers subsidize the charitable donations of individual taxpayers. It is lost revenue that must be made up by everyone else somehow. Now, I had to pay a little something to invade Iraq. That was awful, but my nation had decided to invade Iraq so I get it.

But why did I also have have to pay a little something to the LDS church's massive $6 billion stock and bond portfolio? All taxpayers do subsidize that portfolio. Again... it is lost revenue that has to come from somewhere.

Giving money to build a gigantic temple of gold that only Mormons of a certain rank can enter is not any sensible sort of charitable giving. Giving money to baptize dead non-Mormon celebrities is not charity. Giving money to fund a political campaign to ban marriage equality in California is not charity. Giving money to convert people in the third world to some particular religion is not charity.

And tithing is no more "required" than paying your annual dues to the NRA is required. It is only "required" if you choose to belong to the NRA.

[MercutioATC]

1. Should the average taxpayer get a deduction for a donation to build homes for Katrina victims?

Churches do that, too. Where do we draw the line between what's worthy of an income tax deduction and what isn't?

(on a personal note, I do not believe in deductions for money given to ANY religious group)

[Laura PourMeADrink]

3. were Katrina donations tax deductible? It is an interesting subject. I agree about the

religious group unless you truly know it is going for the poor, the starving and the sick

[MercutioATC]

5. Donations to churches were.

Some of those churches built houses for those displaced by Katrina.

[cthulu2016]

6. I know this is controversial, but I don't believe in any charitable deductions

There is no reason for anyone to be forced to subsidize other people's priorities that way.

A earns 100K
B earns 100K

Tax rate is 25%.

B give 20K to some organization.

A pays 25K taxes.
B pays 20K taxes.

One way or another, A and B will both have to pay a higher tax rate to subsidize B's donations.

And if B give 20K to some disease nobody has, but that his aunt died of, then A has to pay more to make up the gap of money for CDC to research more common diseases.

Makes no sense, in the totality of social priorities.

[MercutioATC]

9. Agreed.

I understand the social value of charitable giving, but there's no reason that we should all pay for somebody else's priorities.

[tama]

31. Agreed

there is no reason we should all pay for mechanisms of violence against us, the priority of our oppressors.

[HiPointDem]

23. i don't think charitable deductions should be allowed for anything. you have the money, you want

to give it, fine. give it. why should you get a tax deduction?

it's just a scam for the big boys. most small fry don't itemize, they just give.

people like pete peterson, on the other hand, get tax deductions for their private foundation dedicated to the destruction of social security.

http://www.pgpf.org/

Peter G. Peterson (born June 5, 1926) is an American businessman, investment banker, fiscal conservative, author, and politician whose most prominent political position was as United States Secretary of Commerce from February 29, 1972, to February 1, 1973 under Richard Nixon. He is most well known currently as founder and principal funder of The Peter G. Peterson Foundation, which he established in 2008 with a $1 billion endowment. The group focuses on raising public awareness about U.S. fiscal-sustainability issues related to federal deficits, entitlement programs, and tax policies.[1]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_George_Peterson

[Laura PourMeADrink]

2. Had this same discussion recently. Debating the true meaning of "charity". Perhaps there is a

true meaning and an IRS meaning.

The wingnut said, "He is a great man, he gave away all his inheritance to charity"

I argued that building a wing on a Mormon college (or any other college) is different than buying food for starving people or medicine for AIDs babies.

[PD Turk]

17. Oh really?

When did he give away his inheritance? Ann already admitted they lived on proceeds from the AMC stock his dad gave him while Mitt was in college. Neither one of them had a job for 5 years and they lived better than most. The "gave away all his inheritance to charity" line is just more BS from the right wing noise machine.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

33. Politfact says "half-true"

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/aug/27/reince-priebus/republican-national-committee-chair-reince-priebus/

He even "gave away his father’s inheritance," national committee chair Reince Priebus repeatedly told TV interviewers on Aug. 26, 2012, as the party prepared to open its convention.

We’ve rated a related claim from Romney himself that he "didn’t inherit money" from his parents. That earned a Half True, because he previously told interviewers he did get an inheritance, but donated it to Brigham Young University.

This time we’re checking whether he "gave away his father’s inheritance."

We’re short on primary evidence for the claim — we haven’t seen his father’s will, nor a receipt from Brigham Young. But there’s a strong circumstantial case that Priebus is correct.

Rich get richer

George Romney died in 1995 at age 88. By that time, his son had led Bain Capital, the private equity firm he launched in 1984, for more than a decade.

As Romney told a C-SPAN interviewer in 2006:

"I did get a check from my dad when he passed away. I shouldn’t say a check, but I did inherit some funds from my dad. But I turned and gave that away to charity. In this case I gave it to a school which Brigham Young University established in his honor. ... And that’s where his inheritance ended up."

Why did he give the money away?

"I figured we had enough of our own," he said.

According to a short history of the George W. Romney Institute of Public Management at BYU, the family provided an endowment in 1998, within a few years of George Romney's death.

Our ruling

Reince Priebus says that Romney "gave away his father's inheritance."

Romney has repeatedly said so himself and that's backed up by the simple fact that Brigham Young University has an institute named for his father launched just a few years after his death. And there’s no reason to think Romney would have needed the money a decade after his lucrative move to Bain Capital.

We find the evidence supports the claim and we see nothing to contradict it. If any evidence emerges, we'll review it. But in the meantime, we rate Priebus’ claim True.

[HiPointDem]

24. they *never* give away "all their money".

[Incitatus]

4. This is interesting:

According to U.S. law, religions have no obligation to open their books to the public, and the LDS Church officially stopped reporting any finances in the early 1960s. In 1997 an investigation by Time used cross-religious comparisons and internal information to estimate the church’s total value at $30 billion. The magazine also produced an estimate that $5 billion worth of tithing flows into the church annually, and that it owned at least $6 billion in stocks and bonds. The Mormon Church at the time said the estimates were grossly exaggerated, but a recent investigation by Reuters in collaboration with sociology professor Cragun estimates that the LDS Church is likely worth $40 billion today and collects up to $8 billion in tithing each year.


http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-07-10/how-the-mormons-make-money

[cthulu2016]

8. Well, why shouldn't I have to subsidize Romney and his friends giving

$6 billion in stocks and bonds to his friends and relatives?

Seriously... people seem to miss that all taxpayers subsidize the deductible donations of individual taxpayers.

[ibegurpard]

7. and tithing is NOT equivalent to charitable giving

[MercutioATC]

10. How so?

Not challenging, just curious.

[The Magistrate]

15. Churches Are Not Charities, Sir

They are self-interested and self-aggrandizing enterprises, not much different from any other business, and that mostly in the odd character of the product they sell. Some portion of monies donated to a church may be put to relief of suffering persons, or other forms of assistance we would have no difficulty agreeing were charitable activities. Portions of monies donated to a church will certainly be used for maintenance of the faith, for the upkeep of its properties, salaries of its functionaries, needs of its endowment fund, and such, which are by no stretch of the imagination charitable expenditures. Some portions of monies donated to a church will be used for proselytizing; again, by no stretch of the imagination charity. Where churches do engage in actions we would agree are charitable, these are often restricted to assisting persons of their communion, which falls short of what most would consider charity, pure and simple.

[Major Nikon]

20. The IRS disagrees

I do understand what you are saying, though. Churches are free to spend their donations on all sorts of things such as soup kitchens, a new Jet for Kenneth Copeland's fleet, or to send priests on sabbaticals to countries with lax child rape enforcement.

[justiceischeap]

28. Gotta say I'm with Magistrate on this one... Churches aren't charities

their non-profits. Big difference. When giving to a non-profit, it's considered charitable because they don't make a "profit" but the church themselves are not charities.

[Major Nikon]

29. I'm just saying purely from what the IRS calls them

Organizations described in section 501(c)(3) are commonly referred to as charitable organizations.

http://www.irs.gov/Charities-&-Non-Profits/Charitable-Organizations/Exemption-Requirements---Section-501(c)(3)-Organizations

I'm not going to dispute the assertion that churches really aren't charitable organizations.

[justiceischeap]

30. Point taken, thanks for the facts. nt

[The Magistrate]

35. You Are Quite Right About That, Sir

Though we do get pretty far into 'How many legs has a dog, if you call a tail a leg?' territory....

[Incitatus]

21. Not really.

Last edited Sat Sep 22, 2012, 04:22 AM - Edit history (2)

The churches often spend a lower percentage of the tithing on real charity. If you donate $1,000 to a soup kitchen, they are going to feed a lot more people than if you give $1,000 to a church.

A good policy would be to classify as a tax-deductible donation, the charity/church should open its books to the IRS and prove they spend a certain percentage of their donations on charity. If we can make insurance companies spend 80% of premiums on healthcare, why can't we make charities spend 80% of their donations on actual assistance or lose their status.

[The Magistrate]

36. That Is An Excellent Suggestion, Sir

[dkf]

11. What about giving to the food bank. Should that be deductible?

[HiPointDem]

25. no.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

12. The same could be said for any deduction

Why do we all have to subsidize people that buy houses? (Mortgage interest deduction)
Why do we all have to subsidize people that live in areas with high property taxes? (Property tax deductions)
Why do we all have to subsidize people that live in states with state income taxes? (State income tax deduction)
Why do we all have to subsidize people that buy their first home? (First time home buyer credit)
Why do we all have to subsidize people with children in college? (Tuition deduction)

I'm not saying that I want to get rid of any of these, just making the point that all deductions are subsidized by all the taxpayers, because at some point, our representatives, sent there by the American electorate, decided this is what we wanted to do with the money. At some point, it was decided that society, as a whole, benefited from these subsidies.

It's not that I don't see your point, and to a certain degree, agree with it. Just stating that it doesn't apply only to charitable deductions, but to all deductions.

[cthulu2016]

13. Yes, I agree that all deductions are social policy

we choose to subsidize charitable giving (as defined by the IRS) because charitable giving is considered a good and thus should be encouraged.

And I assume we have the charitable deduction because we are afraid to not have the church deduction and the rest flows from there.

Personally, though, I do not consider giving to churches to be legitimately tax deductible — it's a glaring establishment clause violation to have two different tax rates for two churchgoers and non churchgoers with the same income. Particularly if tithing is part of your creed. In that case the non-faithful taxpayer is subsidizing a speciffic religious practice.

And having recognized that nobody can be forced to subsidize somebody else's religion, it would be terribly unfair to allow deductions for charities other than religious ones. For donations to a secular soup kitchen to be deductible by not for a church that runs a soup kitchen in the basement.

So I'd get rid of the charitable deduction altogether. (Replaced with a 10% additional standard deduction for everyone, and whatever rate adjustment evened that back out.)

ot that any of this will ever happen, but it's how I look at it

[SickOfTheOnePct]

27. Very well thought out post

thank you for the explanation of your position.

[makokun]

14. This reasoning is obscene...

Listen to yourselves. You are trashing the dude for giving to charity? Really? This is taking the partisanship too far. Time to pop a few Xanax and calm the "F" down. There are rational arguments that can be made about legitimate issues... not this knee jerk pablum. It reflects badly on anyone here with a brain and a conscience.

[cthulu2016]

16. I hope you are enjoying your stay here

Since you cannot read you may find this forum challenging, being primarily text based, but your input is welcome, even when replying to wholly imaginary statements.

The OP does not trash anyone for giving to anything.

It implicitly trashes the Romney campaign talking points on his tax information, which is to add his charitable giving to his taxes paid, as if his voluntary tithing constitutes a higher tax burden.

[Major Nikon]

19. I see comprehension is not your strong suit

He isn't getting bashed for giving to charity. He's getting bashed for trying to claim that charitable giving = taxes. Willard frequently adds his charitable giving to his effective tax rate in a perverted attempt to make his effective tax rate appear larger. Perhaps that shit flies over in freeperland where abstract thought is frowned upon, but not so much here.

[bluestate10]

18. Given Romney's lies and deception so far.

I am waiting until experts go over his tax releases. Summaries don't explain the inner details of tax returns. Also, taking less in charitable deductions could have been forced upon Romney due to the IRS disallowing some deductions or forcing Romney to pay back money that was claimed as charitable giving.

[HiPointDem]

22. HUGE K&R. I'm so sick of hearing rich people's miserly tax paying defended because "he gives

away millions of his own money".

They don't get it. Pete Peterson 'gives away millions of his own money" TO KILL SOCIAL SECURITY USING HIS TAX-EXEMPT CHARITABLE FOUNDATION.

Bill gates gives away millions of his own money to FORCE YOU TO EAT GMO FOOD & SEND YOUR KIDS TO CHARTER SCHOOL.

Everyone & his dog has their personal 'foundation' these days. It's a tax dodge, they sock away millions & billions out of the reach of the taxman, they can invest the principle anyway they please (don't tell me about how the 'board' makes the decisions, you can stack your board), they only have to give away 5% a year (if you invest well you'll be making more than that, which means the principle GROWS, i.e. you're not giving away shit when you look at the tax savings).

They use it for politics, to shape society in their chosen direction, to 'bribe' people with high-paying jobs (plus wonderful benefits and retirement packages), to provide a lifetime sinecure to the kiddies, to launder money and that's only the short list.

IT'S ONE OF THE BIGGEST SCAMS GOING.

[raouldukelives]

32. Ditto! nt

[Starry Messenger]

34. Amen!

[tama]

26. It isn't

Charitable giving does not go to MIC and military imperialism. When people are conquered and taxed, they are primarily taxed to fund the mechanisms of their oppression.