3 ms·

There is a reason. Charities are able to do beneficial work for the people of the country, and are able to organize themselves to accomplish the work in ways th

There is a reason. Charities are able to do beneficial work for the people of the country, and are able to organize themselves to accomplish the work in ways that the structure of the government cannot. Incentivizing the behavior of giving (or rather, removing part of the disincentive of taxing the money a person intends to use in an altruistic way) increases this behavior and helps more people. If your argument is that many of these charities aren't actually doing useful work, and that they only exist as a way to get tax deductions, is shaky when you consider that you still end up poorer when making a charitable contribution than when you don't (in no case does the deduction exceed the amount donated).

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
fjsolwmv 8y ago
None of that justifies a tax deduction. Taxes are the way the way government funds its social contract. "Giving more to private exharity at the expense of tax revenue" just raised the tax burden of everyone else -- sonwhy shouldn't their extra tax payments also be tax deductible? It leads to absurdity. Especially considering that many tax-deductible "charities" are actually people getting together to pay each other money for personal services (for example: schools, churches, and hobby associations)
- CompelTechnic 8y ago
  >just raised the tax burden of everyone else -- sonwhy shouldn't their extra tax payments also be tax deductible? It leads to absurdity. It has been born out in practice that these extra tax payments are not deductible. Few people would expect this to be the case, either. The absurdity does not exist. This is not an intellectually honest argument. >Especially considering that many tax-deductible "charities" are actually people getting together to pay each other money for personal services (for example: schools, churches, and hobby associations) Private schools provide an alternative means of educating children when one does not trust the culture or capabilities of the local public schools. Taxing them would reduce their prevalence and would worsen the burden on private parents whose economic activity already supports both public (through property tax, etc) and private schools. Churches provide moral support to communities, organize deeds of service, and are generally a force for exercising virtue. I say this as an athiest. Some bad churches exist, but taxing churches would be throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Tax-free hobby organizations are a little less defensible, but it is worth considering that they are limited in scope by law (https://cullinanelaw.com/501c7-social-and-recreational-organizations-how-to-stay-tax-exempt/ https://cullinanelaw.com/501c7-social-and-recreational-organ...). But it is worth considering that making it cheaper to fund hobby organizations makes it easier to participate in the sort of activities that we enjoy, and that improve our physical and mental health. We are already living in a society where we spend every dollar we make, and we still feel lonely and isolated nonetheless. Encouraging these outlets, with their socialization and tight focus on community, is a force for good.
tux1968 8y ago
Nobody is saying charities should be abolished, just that they should receive no tax exemption since it's so easy to abuse. Assuming this would generate a lot more revenue for the government, the tax rate could be reduced to make this a net-zero proposition -- leaving the same amount of money available for legitimate donations.
- CompelTechnic 8y ago
  Economic decisions happen on the margin. Reducing the deductibility of charitable contributions will reduce the total dollar amount of legitimate charitable contributions that occur by a lot. Changing the overall tax rate is bringing a much larger argument into this (tail wagging the dog).
- lostapathy 8y ago
  This is a line of thinking that's all too often forgotten. As you point out, it's very possible to raise taxes/eliminate a loophole on a bad policy without giving more money to the government overall. Sure, the rich give more to charities, but they also pay the most taxes. The net change of parent's proposal would probably be smaller than most people expect for the average charitable person.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

fjsolwmv 8y ago

None of that justifies a tax deduction. Taxes are the way the way government funds its social contract. "Giving more to private exharity at the expense of tax revenue" just raised the tax burden of everyone else -- sonwhy shouldn't their extra tax payments also be tax deductible? It leads to absurdity. Especially considering that many tax-deductible "charities" are actually people getting together to pay each other money for personal services (for example: schools, churches, and hobby associations)

CompelTechnic 8y ago
>just raised the tax burden of everyone else -- sonwhy shouldn't their extra tax payments also be tax deductible? It leads to absurdity. It has been born out in practice that these extra tax payments are not deductible. Few people would expect this to be the case, either. The absurdity does not exist. This is not an intellectually honest argument. >Especially considering that many tax-deductible "charities" are actually people getting together to pay each other money for personal services (for example: schools, churches, and hobby associations) Private schools provide an alternative means of educating children when one does not trust the culture or capabilities of the local public schools. Taxing them would reduce their prevalence and would worsen the burden on private parents whose economic activity already supports both public (through property tax, etc) and private schools. Churches provide moral support to communities, organize deeds of service, and are generally a force for exercising virtue. I say this as an athiest. Some bad churches exist, but taxing churches would be throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Tax-free hobby organizations are a little less defensible, but it is worth considering that they are limited in scope by law (https://cullinanelaw.com/501c7-social-and-recreational-organizations-how-to-stay-tax-exempt/ https://cullinanelaw.com/501c7-social-and-recreational-organ...). But it is worth considering that making it cheaper to fund hobby organizations makes it easier to participate in the sort of activities that we enjoy, and that improve our physical and mental health. We are already living in a society where we spend every dollar we make, and we still feel lonely and isolated nonetheless. Encouraging these outlets, with their socialization and tight focus on community, is a force for good.

tux1968 8y ago

Nobody is saying charities should be abolished, just that they should receive no tax exemption since it's so easy to abuse. Assuming this would generate a lot more revenue for the government, the tax rate could be reduced to make this a net-zero proposition -- leaving the same amount of money available for legitimate donations.

CompelTechnic 8y ago
Economic decisions happen on the margin. Reducing the deductibility of charitable contributions will reduce the total dollar amount of legitimate charitable contributions that occur by a lot. Changing the overall tax rate is bringing a much larger argument into this (tail wagging the dog).
lostapathy 8y ago
This is a line of thinking that's all too often forgotten. As you point out, it's very possible to raise taxes/eliminate a loophole on a bad policy without giving more money to the government overall. Sure, the rich give more to charities, but they also pay the most taxes. The net change of parent's proposal would probably be smaller than most people expect for the average charitable person.