3 ms·

Not sure "charity" is a subjective term? (Or, more accurately, I know that "charity" is not a subjective term for the IRS.) You shouldn't try to play fast and

Not sure "charity" is a subjective term? (Or, more accurately, I know that "charity" is not a subjective term for the IRS.) You shouldn't try to play fast and loose with tax breaks for charitable giving because the IRS actually keeps pretty close tabs on that stuff. As far as they're concerned, an organization either has charitable status with them, or the organization does not have charitable status with them. There is no middle ground. Trying to argue that an organization is a charity, and therefore your gift should be tax deductible, is a losing proposition where the IRS is concerned.

lotsofpulp 8y ago
Why should there be a tax break for paying this organization? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kars4Kids https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kars4Kids That's just the first example off the top of my head, but also, when someone donates a wing or lecture hall to a school, why do they get to name it? They are gaining prestige and public relations, and admissions status for their descendants. A real charitable donation would be credited to anonymous. But even then, taxes are for the operation of society, that we as voters have come together and decided on. There just isn't a reason to subvert that with a million other little organizations, even if one were to claim that they are being audited and whatnot, when one can clearly see favoritism in the group's beneficiaries and quid pro quo from the donations.
- fjsolwmv 8y ago
  That first one is a bad example because as the article notes, they are under investigation for suspicion of not being a legally valid charity. That doesn't undermine the concept of legally calid charity. The rest of your argument is spot-on, but one rebuttal is that charitable giving exemption is a way to provide a truly democratic way for citizens to give votes of partial non-confidence in how their tax dollars are spent.
  - lotsofpulp 8y ago
    That's actually my point. I've heard that corrupt charity's jingle for over 20 years and they're still only "under investigation"? In the meantime, they and their contributors get evade taxes, and at the end of it all, there is no punishment for anyone. No one is going to go to jail for stretching the definitions in the law, it is all plausibly deniable. The only solution is to remove this option period. The US government even negotiated with Scientology where they kept their charity status even after being proven corrupt: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_status_of_Scientology_in_the_United_States#Negotiations_and_the_resolution_of_the_dispute https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_status_of_Scientology_in_t... How can anyone take "charity" as a legal term seriously?
- prostoalex 8y ago
  > They are gaining prestige and public relations, and admissions status for their descendants. The IRS rules state that if the benefit to the donor is quantifiable, it has to be subtracted from the overall amount of the donation. You would have to come up with a reasonable fool-proof rule to quantify those benefits.
  - lotsofpulp 8y ago
    Hence why tax deductions should be eliminated.
lostapathy 8y ago
It's not subjective to the IRS, but it's subjective to the common person. For one example, what's a "charitable donation" to a mega church to one person is a scam to let Joel Osteen live like a king without paying taxes to another.

lotsofpulp 8y ago

Why should there be a tax break for paying this organization? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kars4Kids https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kars4Kids That's just the first example off the top of my head, but also, when someone donates a wing or lecture hall to a school, why do they get to name it? They are gaining prestige and public relations, and admissions status for their descendants. A real charitable donation would be credited to anonymous. But even then, taxes are for the operation of society, that we as voters have come together and decided on. There just isn't a reason to subvert that with a million other little organizations, even if one were to claim that they are being audited and whatnot, when one can clearly see favoritism in the group's beneficiaries and quid pro quo from the donations.

fjsolwmv 8y ago
That first one is a bad example because as the article notes, they are under investigation for suspicion of not being a legally valid charity. That doesn't undermine the concept of legally calid charity. The rest of your argument is spot-on, but one rebuttal is that charitable giving exemption is a way to provide a truly democratic way for citizens to give votes of partial non-confidence in how their tax dollars are spent.
- lotsofpulp 8y ago
  That's actually my point. I've heard that corrupt charity's jingle for over 20 years and they're still only "under investigation"? In the meantime, they and their contributors get evade taxes, and at the end of it all, there is no punishment for anyone. No one is going to go to jail for stretching the definitions in the law, it is all plausibly deniable. The only solution is to remove this option period. The US government even negotiated with Scientology where they kept their charity status even after being proven corrupt: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_status_of_Scientology_in_the_United_States#Negotiations_and_the_resolution_of_the_dispute https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_status_of_Scientology_in_t... How can anyone take "charity" as a legal term seriously?
prostoalex 8y ago
> They are gaining prestige and public relations, and admissions status for their descendants. The IRS rules state that if the benefit to the donor is quantifiable, it has to be subtracted from the overall amount of the donation. You would have to come up with a reasonable fool-proof rule to quantify those benefits.
- lotsofpulp 8y ago
  Hence why tax deductions should be eliminated.

lostapathy 8y ago

It's not subjective to the IRS, but it's subjective to the common person. For one example, what's a "charitable donation" to a mega church to one person is a scam to let Joel Osteen live like a king without paying taxes to another.