How does this make sense?
 

Reduce or limit deductions for charity to be fair? Is it not the poor that benefit from charity or am I missing something? Is some poor family somewhere going to have to deal with less food from the pantry but can go to bed happy knowing the rich are no longer getting the deduction? I hope not but don't know how it will be avoided.

WASHINGTON (AP) - President Barack Obama is defending a budget idea that would reduce the tax deduction that wealthier families can take when they make charitable donations.

Obama says the plan is "the right thing to do."

Speaking at a prime-time news conference, the president said the change in tax policy would be realistic and fairer to lower-earning families that make charitable gifts but get a smaller tax deduction.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php...show_article=1

Only the sickness called liberalism would believe it is the "right thing" to intentionally injure charities in order to "stick it to the rich". Great time to decrease incentive for giving. The important thing is the giving, not the reasoning behind the giving.

This money is supposed to fund health care reform.

If the important thing were truely the giving, then changing the percentage of charitable donations people who earn over $250,000 per year can deduct from 35% to 28% wouldn't decrease their giving at all.

But apparently the important thing for these folks isn't the giving, it's indeed the amount of tax deduction one gets from giving.

Don't worry, this one won't pass in the fall.

....and who said liberalism isn't a mental illness?;)

Yea you all figured it out. The rich give for deductions. They love giving a million and getting $350K as a deduction. Great business and all. It gives them the feeling of being a legislator.

Sad part about this is Universities and Hospitals, large recipients of endowments and donations will take a hit but I know there are more important factors than Healthcare and Education to deal with right now. Like making it fair, tax-wise for low income people to give to charity. Talk about taking your eye off the ball!

If you decrease incentive for giving to charity....

you figure the rest out.

So we are going to in effect take money from charity to pay for health care reform?

The truly important thing is to fund the charities, reasoning behind it should be irrelevant. Only the naive would believe that this wouldn't reduce the amount of money going to charity.

LOL

Like BO said last night, the Bush-Cheney-GOP-Asleep-at-the-Wheel-(Hell-COMATOSE-at-the-Wheel) Depression that we're in will have a much greater impact on charitable giving...

Yup...if you tell a lie often enough, people start to believe it!

Yeah so he is going to help by making it less attractive to give. That makes perfect sense.

At least attempt to come up with an original response.

Yes, people in that earning level certainly do give for tax deductions, it's an important part of tax planning for that income bracket.

The estimate is that charitable donations would decrease by 1.7% (Obama team) to 3.7% worse case scenario (some independent org that monitors charitable deductions whose name I can't remember, I read it yesterday)

But again, there are already so many Dems and Repubs against this, it won't pass in the fall.

This way the Govt decides which charities get money, then raise everyone's taxes to pay for it. Appearantly the Govt's pet charities aren't getting enough $$ from the private sector.

Wow. That's .... imaginative.

Thank you.

Oops...I forgot. 95% of us are getting a tax break.

There are plenty of "rich" who wouldn't donate a penney of their money to charity no matter what the deduction...But I bet the majority of the 39% bracket that donate will continue to no matter what the loss of deductions might be. You think Bill Gates does what he does for the deduction?

I think not at all for Bill, but apparently for 1.7 to 3.5% it's a deal-breaker ;)

My concern is that I don't think this is an appropriate place to get money for healthcare reforms, although I support some aggressive looking at and reworking of our healthcare system.

On a similar subject, apparently the Dems took 100 billion out of Obama's budget today (which matches what the Senate is doing to it)

Headlines today: stocks rising, as economic data tops forcasts. Durable good orders rising (very good news). Housing purchases of used homes up in February. February new home sales up. Mortgage applications up.

You're welcome :)

"It's an important part of tax planning" Riot 3/25/09

Seriously to me it has nothing to do with being fair and everything to do with getting their hands on yet more money. Damn if they have to rob charities to do so. I also believe Gates deducted his charitable donations AND is wealthy enough to create his own charities with his wife manning the register. Still far better than the likes of Leon Panetta who formed the Leon & Sylvia Panetta Institute for Public Policy at Cal U and now gets paid by the school?:zz: :zz:

Yeah, Dell, trusts, bequests, charitable donations are indeed an important part of annual tax planning. You seriously think it is not?

Again, this is where Obama wants to get some of the money to support healthcare reforms he's targeted. I'm glad that so far it appears most of the House and Senate disagree with getting it from here, too, even though the worse case estimates so far are that it will marginally affect charitable donations.

As a general statement, I think it's fair to say that bleeding heart libtards contribute and always have contributed more to charities than conservatives ....tax breaks or no tax breaks. Unless the NRA is considered a charity..

Church and Religious Charities of course do not count.

Nope..they do...puroposely didn't include them. Local Knights of Columbus does great things..

FYI and this is JUST Chicago

Titled Imagine a Year Without Catholic Charities

No emergency food pantries… no emergency shelters. No way for seniors to find the dignity of protection from the vulnerabilities of aging. No means of healing and new life for homeless families. No access to affordable housing, and job-readiness training for armed forces veterans who are homeless after valiantly serving our country.

Last year, Catholic Charities of the Archdiocese of Chicago touched the lives of more than 1.1 million people in Cook and Lake Counties. This means that one in eight people who live anywhere from the Wisconsin border to the Indiana state line were positively impacted by the services provided locally by Catholic Charities.

Catholic Charities yearly provides more than 5 million meals and answers over 80,000 calls for emergency food, clothing, shelter, rent and utility assistance. Last year 1,500 children received childcare through our Childhood and Family Strengthening Centers. Our 17 beautiful apartment buildings provide safe, secure housing for 1,335 seniors. Our 18 nutrition centers in Chicago nourished 126,125 low-income women, infants and children with more than 2,800,000 food packages and many supportive services.

I'm not sure why, but for some reason I think that the Catholic Charities have very well paid accountants who are taking full advantage of these donations. Kinda' like the Wisconsin Indian Reservations and their tax free status..which I KNOW you are aware of..

Come on Steve...that's a tear jerker of a post, but one that can be mirrored by numerous charities that don't leverage their parishoners into 10% of their income or they will go to hell.....As I said before..Catholic Charities, KOC, etc all do good things...but you have to admit ( I hope) that many church donations aren't exactly free of arm twisting and basket passing, bill dropping donation methods.

That is not the point. The fact that charities are and will struggle with an economic downturn makes this idea a loser. Remember that everyone earning over $250k is now rich so throwing Bill Gates out there is a bit much. You need to come back to the US!

And while some will continue to donate at their current levels some of the not so rich rich people will cut their chartiable giving as to not have to go deeper in their pockets out of necessity of follow ing a budget or simply not having the extra money. In the end this cannot help charity and will hurt them. How is that a good thing?

You know if you disagree with a demoractic proposal we wont turn your name over to Pelosi and crew ....

That is a myth perpertrated by bleeding hearts.

You guys and your cute side comments...just can't help yourself..

yeah...it's a down economy so charities will suffer. I think the end result of the direction we are going will result in more money for people to donate then if the staus quo remained. It's just how you look at this and everything else...we are both pounding our heads against the wall because there is no agreeing at this point.

It is simple economics. Eliminate a % of tax incentive, eliminate a % of revenue to charity. That is how it works. If you make less money, you spend less money. Same concept.

The issues not only is the negative effect on charity, what troubles me is the reasoning given. To make it "fair" to lower income givers? Has ANYONE ever given to charity and felt ripped off because someone else may have given more and gets a tax benefit from it?

and countered by the neo cons

whatever...serve volley...it's endless

How does this and other tax increases lead to more money being given? I would love to hear your reasoning?

How can you defend a disincentive to charity? I really dont understand...

Because Libs give far more than conservs and when libs are happy they give even more. Or at least I think that's what I think tonights leason is?

I think you are aware of the big picture behind what Obama is doing...obviously you disagree with it, but if you did agree, then I shouldn't have to connect the dots, even for a (edit) conservative like you

not bad Dell...one out of two

I think that Bob may be way offbase with the idea that liberals arent feeling the pain economically and will be forced to reduce their giving out of necessity. If that happens and all of us bastard conservatives reduce our contributions where will the charities be in the end? In your view the liberals will have to increase their giving to make up the difference and I have a hard time believing that can happen at least in the short term.

Is this an admission of a socialist agenda?