4 ms·

The idea is that money you give away in a tax year offsets your “income.” The money you give to charity represents money you did not keep, and is not part of t

by Digory 8y ago

The idea is that money you give away in a tax year offsets your “income.” The money you give to charity represents money you did not keep, and is not part of that year’s income. The idea that government ‘subsidizes’ charity by not calling it income of the donor and the charity is upside down.

lmm 8y ago
> The idea is that money you give away in a tax year offsets your “income.” The money you give to charity represents money you did not keep, and is not part of that year’s income. Why does the same logic not apply to any money you expend that year? We tax people on gross income; making anything tax deductible is completely equivalent to subsidizing that thing.
- Digory 8y ago
  You’re asking what’s different between money that buys something for yourself, and money given away? When you trade money for stuff, you get the benefit. If we’re taxing failure to keep and spend money on yourself, we might as well tax based on failure to earn as much as you can — we’re subsidizing teachers that could be paying taxes like VCs. But no one thinks like that. People seem to think there’s a social contract via government, but no private social contract -- but there is.
  - lmm 8y ago
    > When you trade money for stuff, you get the benefit. People exchange their money for all kinds of benefits, tangible and less so, and 503.c status is an extremely poor measure of whether a person is getting a benefit for their money. They could be funding their kind of artists - or buying their favourite art for a "museum" next door, open only by appointment to them. Lobbying for their preferred political causes, investing in their businesses, hiring their friends... plenty of ways to benefit. Certainly it is absurd to imagine that state and local taxes (which are spent in a democratically organised way) are somehow more for your own benefit than private "charitable" donations to foundations you control, and it's obscene that the latter should be more tax deductible than the former. > If we’re taxing failure to keep and spend money on yourself, we might as well tax based on failure to earn as much as you can — we’re subsidizing teachers that could be paying taxes like VCs. But no one thinks like that. Income tax isn't about how much you spend on yourself - if that were the intent it would be a consumption tax rather than an earnings tax. It's about how much you control. If you want to direct a big chunk of society's future production to particular ends, the rest of society gets to take a cut.
dragonwriter 8y ago
> The idea is that money you give away in a tax year offsets your “income.” The money you give to charity represents money you did not keep, and is not part of that year’s income. Money that you received and disposed of according to your personal preferences is, in fact, income just as much of those preferences are to support a church as they are if that preference is to buy a game console. > The idea that government ‘subsidizes’ charity by not calling it income of the donor and the charity is upside down. No, it's factually accurate that it is subsidizing certain personal choices of what to do with income received. Money that you choose to spend doesn't retroactively stop being income you received because of what you choose to spend it on, no matter how much government creates a tax system that represents that fiction.
- Digory 8y ago
  I didn't say church. You seem to be upset that church and philanthropy are not seen as a personal expenses. Cynicism about altruism isn't a good reason to thwack private charity. "Democracy" doesn't always have clean and pure motives, either.

by Digory 8y ago

lmm 8y ago

> The idea is that money you give away in a tax year offsets your “income.” The money you give to charity represents money you did not keep, and is not part of that year’s income. Why does the same logic not apply to any money you expend that year? We tax people on gross income; making anything tax deductible is completely equivalent to subsidizing that thing.

Digory 8y ago
You’re asking what’s different between money that buys something for yourself, and money given away? When you trade money for stuff, you get the benefit. If we’re taxing failure to keep and spend money on yourself, we might as well tax based on failure to earn as much as you can — we’re subsidizing teachers that could be paying taxes like VCs. But no one thinks like that. People seem to think there’s a social contract via government, but no private social contract -- but there is.
- lmm 8y ago
  > When you trade money for stuff, you get the benefit. People exchange their money for all kinds of benefits, tangible and less so, and 503.c status is an extremely poor measure of whether a person is getting a benefit for their money. They could be funding their kind of artists - or buying their favourite art for a "museum" next door, open only by appointment to them. Lobbying for their preferred political causes, investing in their businesses, hiring their friends... plenty of ways to benefit. Certainly it is absurd to imagine that state and local taxes (which are spent in a democratically organised way) are somehow more for your own benefit than private "charitable" donations to foundations you control, and it's obscene that the latter should be more tax deductible than the former. > If we’re taxing failure to keep and spend money on yourself, we might as well tax based on failure to earn as much as you can — we’re subsidizing teachers that could be paying taxes like VCs. But no one thinks like that. Income tax isn't about how much you spend on yourself - if that were the intent it would be a consumption tax rather than an earnings tax. It's about how much you control. If you want to direct a big chunk of society's future production to particular ends, the rest of society gets to take a cut.

dragonwriter 8y ago

> The idea is that money you give away in a tax year offsets your “income.” The money you give to charity represents money you did not keep, and is not part of that year’s income. Money that you received and disposed of according to your personal preferences is, in fact, income just as much of those preferences are to support a church as they are if that preference is to buy a game console. > The idea that government ‘subsidizes’ charity by not calling it income of the donor and the charity is upside down. No, it's factually accurate that it is subsidizing certain personal choices of what to do with income received. Money that you choose to spend doesn't retroactively stop being income you received because of what you choose to spend it on, no matter how much government creates a tax system that represents that fiction.

Digory 8y ago
I didn't say church. You seem to be upset that church and philanthropy are not seen as a personal expenses. Cynicism about altruism isn't a good reason to thwack private charity. "Democracy" doesn't always have clean and pure motives, either.