3 ms·
In particular for charities that perform work the government would otherwise be engaging in, the opposite should be true, and a tax credit to refund 100% of the
by bsbechtel 10y ago
In particular for charities that perform work the government would otherwise be engaging in, the opposite should be true, and a tax credit to refund 100% of the expenditure should be provided. The reason being is if you donate $100 to a charity that provides for example clothing or meals to welfare recipients, that's $100 the government doesn't need to spend on such programs. However, you are only credited ~$30 towards your tax bill, yet you are net negative $100 that you gave to the charity. The government makes a net positive $70 on your $100 donation to charity. Considering you are spending money so the government doesn't have to, you should be credited the full $100 donation instead of just the $30 that would otherwise go to your tax bill.
- Retric 10y agoThere is no good works requirement. Satanist preachers also get a tax break on donations. The government is not going to pay for a new Opera house in a tiny town. But, if you want an Opera house in a tiny town you can get the Government to pick up part of the bill. Want to get Justin Bieber to play for your small down? Don't worry you can get that subsidized! Just call it an art's festival.
- bsbechtel 10y ago>>Want to get Justin Bieber to play for your small down? Don't worry you can get that subsidized! Just call it an art's festival. If the government would otherwise be financing the festival, then yes, otherwise no tax credit, and IMHO, no tax break, should be given.
- Retric 10y agoUhh, that's not how it actually works. Now, if you want to limit the tax break to some set of things the government actually does anyway then I think you would be hard pressed to find donors unless they did more than the government. At which point your only limiting it to the same kinds of things (ex: new roads) not the exact same things.