3 ms·

I've never understood that about deducting charitable donations. I've always had the principle that I shouldn't be getting anything for my charity. Otherwise, i

I've never understood that about deducting charitable donations. I've always had the principle that I shouldn't be getting anything for my charity. Otherwise, it wouldn't really be a donation to me. It would be make it conditional. I'm giving this money away, but give me some back from the taxpayers? I might sound like a sucker, but that's just always been my thought on it. My mother once said something to me like that as a kid and I've applied it donating.

hsitz 11y ago
You never end up with a net plus by giving to charity; you are always giving away money. This is because the amount of tax you avoid is always less than what you gift. For example, you may gift $100, which ends up reducing your tax bill by, say, $30. If charitable gifts weren't tax-deductible the equivalent would have been paying $30 in taxes and having $70 left over to give to charity (for same $100 loss). The tax-advantaged status gives charitable gifts an extra bang-for-your-buck by giving you same net result (total outgo of $100) while allowing you to direct all $100 to the charity of your choice. Also, notice that you're not somehow "getting something back" from other taxpayers in this scenario. You're just lowering your tax bill.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
  - aninhumer 11y ago
    But the money still goes to charity. Essentially person A is just indirectly donating to their pet charity using political capital. As long as the charity is legit, I don't see the problem.
    - hsitz 11y ago
      Right, there is no problem, this is not controversial. The linked article that started this thread is suggesting that somehow Zuckerberg plans to get this tax-advantaged treatment by making gifts to an organization that is not actually charitable. That would be a problem, but I would suggest that the linked article is mistaken in saying that this is what Zuckerberg is doing.
prostoalex 11y ago
The reasons are mainly historical, but the non-profit lobby (consisting of charities, 501c3 non-profit organizations, churches and university endowments) holds so much power, that stripping them of tax-sheltered status would be a third rail for any politician running for office. The historical reasons assume that many everyday community efforts (feeding the hungry, sheltering the homeless, abused women and children, planting trees, sheltering stray animals) is better done (and financed) at community level by community efforts rather than by central government and sending money to Washington D.C.

hsitz 11y ago

You never end up with a net plus by giving to charity; you are always giving away money. This is because the amount of tax you avoid is always less than what you gift. For example, you may gift $100, which ends up reducing your tax bill by, say, $30. If charitable gifts weren't tax-deductible the equivalent would have been paying $30 in taxes and having $70 left over to give to charity (for same $100 loss). The tax-advantaged status gives charitable gifts an extra bang-for-your-buck by giving you same net result (total outgo of $100) while allowing you to direct all $100 to the charity of your choice. Also, notice that you're not somehow "getting something back" from other taxpayers in this scenario. You're just lowering your tax bill.

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
- aninhumer 11y ago
  But the money still goes to charity. Essentially person A is just indirectly donating to their pet charity using political capital. As long as the charity is legit, I don't see the problem.
  - hsitz 11y ago
    Right, there is no problem, this is not controversial. The linked article that started this thread is suggesting that somehow Zuckerberg plans to get this tax-advantaged treatment by making gifts to an organization that is not actually charitable. That would be a problem, but I would suggest that the linked article is mistaken in saying that this is what Zuckerberg is doing.

prostoalex 11y ago

The reasons are mainly historical, but the non-profit lobby (consisting of charities, 501c3 non-profit organizations, churches and university endowments) holds so much power, that stripping them of tax-sheltered status would be a third rail for any politician running for office. The historical reasons assume that many everyday community efforts (feeding the hungry, sheltering the homeless, abused women and children, planting trees, sheltering stray animals) is better done (and financed) at community level by community efforts rather than by central government and sending money to Washington D.C.