7 ms·

Wouldn't the reduce the amount of donations greatly? Gotta think most people do it at least partly for recognition, otherwise there'd be nothing noteworthy abou

Wouldn't the reduce the amount of donations greatly? Gotta think most people do it at least partly for recognition, otherwise there'd be nothing noteworthy about the article we're discussing.

lotsofpulp 6y ago
I would get rid of all tax deductions period, but in the case of non anonymous donations, the chance of quid pro quo and inability to prove it is so high, that I just view it as a tax loophole for the rich. If it lowers the amount people donate, then it proves my point...that people were intending to get something in return, hence not a donation.
- Ericson2314 6y ago
  Absolutely a good comment. Tax the rich, replace philanthropy with Democracy. Pathetic that PP is getting downvotes.
  - unethical_ban 6y ago
    Get off the high horse. He didn't explain his original position at all, and frankly it's an ideal that seems very unrealistic. I agree that we should be taxing the ultra-rich a lot more, but "prohibiting donations that have names attached" is legislating morality as much as "don't buy liquor on Sundays".
    - lotsofpulp 6y ago
      I never wrote non anonymous donations should be prohibited.
- unethical_ban 6y ago
  So it's better that a hospital not get Beinhoff's hundred million dollars, since you don't like his need for legacy?
  - lotsofpulp 6y ago
    If society wants the hospital to exist and have funding, then society can decide to raise taxes to pay for it. I don't care about Benioff's need for legacy. I care about reducing corruption, which non anonymous tax deductible donations enable.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - unethical_ban 6y ago
      I think your idea of controlling "corruption" is simplistic if your argument ends with "let government handle the money".
- jcheng 6y ago
  Unless there's actual corruption involved (like giving to a "charity" that actually fuels your personal expenses), how could a deductible gift be used a tax loophole? I've heard the misconception that one could use a deduction to bump yourself into a lower tax rate on your entire income, and therefore come out ahead, but that's not how U.S. federal income tax rates work.
  - lotsofpulp 6y ago
    Donate to a selective school, and your descendants get higher probability of admission.
  - strken 6y ago
    It's like the government is matching your donations, and in the case of certain charities, that means the government is effectively funding lobbyists for you. "Loopholes" are often in the eye of the beholder.
    - jcheng 6y ago
      https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/lobbying https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/lobbying
davinic 6y ago
We could also just tax the income used to make the donations at similar levels to prior top brackets and not depend on philanthropy as a means to fund public institutions or social safety nets.
- white-flame 6y ago
  That puts the decision on where to put public good will and non-profitable money sinks solely into the machine of government bureaucracy, which I don't think would be very effective. Currently we incentivize private individual donations, and that lets a lot of things happen quickly and without the requirement of soliciting the permission of a bottlenecked council for anything to happen.
  - Retric 6y ago
    Government is often significantly more effective at spending money for charitable works than private charities due to all the overhead involved in running charities. Further, as a private individual I dislike that my tax money is used to in part fund charities that I strongly disagree with. If you want to use your money to support some private crusade that’s fine, but why must we support anything anyone thinks as a worthy cause? It’s in effect a blank check without meaningful oversight. Their are for example homeopathy charities whose donations are tax deductible.
  - charles_f 6y ago
    Isn't budget a part of elections platform, and so democracy? Because certainly when it comes to giving money to people bureaucracy becomes a factor, but then rather than redistributing money, things that you could spend tax money on: - Universal healthcare - Free education - Funding homeless assistance programs - Employment insurance - UBI (granted these last 2 are pretty much just redistributing money) The question is whether you want the few billionaires to decide where to spend the money, or everyone (that is, people who haven't been disenfranchised). AND THEN arguably given the polarization of the US today, I can understand that anyone feels frisky in raising the taxes to found the other side's ideas (being republicans not wanting to fund healthcare or democrats not wanting to fund a wall)

Wouldn't the reduce the amount of donations greatly? Gotta think most people do it at least partly for recognition, otherwise there'd be nothing noteworthy about the article we're discussing.

lotsofpulp 6y ago

I would get rid of all tax deductions period, but in the case of non anonymous donations, the chance of quid pro quo and inability to prove it is so high, that I just view it as a tax loophole for the rich. If it lowers the amount people donate, then it proves my point...that people were intending to get something in return, hence not a donation.

Ericson2314 6y ago
Absolutely a good comment. Tax the rich, replace philanthropy with Democracy. Pathetic that PP is getting downvotes.
- unethical_ban 6y ago
  Get off the high horse. He didn't explain his original position at all, and frankly it's an ideal that seems very unrealistic. I agree that we should be taxing the ultra-rich a lot more, but "prohibiting donations that have names attached" is legislating morality as much as "don't buy liquor on Sundays".
  - lotsofpulp 6y ago
    I never wrote non anonymous donations should be prohibited.
unethical_ban 6y ago
So it's better that a hospital not get Beinhoff's hundred million dollars, since you don't like his need for legacy?
- lotsofpulp 6y ago
  If society wants the hospital to exist and have funding, then society can decide to raise taxes to pay for it. I don't care about Benioff's need for legacy. I care about reducing corruption, which non anonymous tax deductible donations enable.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - unethical_ban 6y ago
    I think your idea of controlling "corruption" is simplistic if your argument ends with "let government handle the money".
jcheng 6y ago
Unless there's actual corruption involved (like giving to a "charity" that actually fuels your personal expenses), how could a deductible gift be used a tax loophole? I've heard the misconception that one could use a deduction to bump yourself into a lower tax rate on your entire income, and therefore come out ahead, but that's not how U.S. federal income tax rates work.
- lotsofpulp 6y ago
  Donate to a selective school, and your descendants get higher probability of admission.
- strken 6y ago
  It's like the government is matching your donations, and in the case of certain charities, that means the government is effectively funding lobbyists for you. "Loopholes" are often in the eye of the beholder.
  - jcheng 6y ago
    https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/lobbying https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/lobbying

davinic 6y ago

We could also just tax the income used to make the donations at similar levels to prior top brackets and not depend on philanthropy as a means to fund public institutions or social safety nets.

white-flame 6y ago
That puts the decision on where to put public good will and non-profitable money sinks solely into the machine of government bureaucracy, which I don't think would be very effective. Currently we incentivize private individual donations, and that lets a lot of things happen quickly and without the requirement of soliciting the permission of a bottlenecked council for anything to happen.
- Retric 6y ago
  Government is often significantly more effective at spending money for charitable works than private charities due to all the overhead involved in running charities. Further, as a private individual I dislike that my tax money is used to in part fund charities that I strongly disagree with. If you want to use your money to support some private crusade that’s fine, but why must we support anything anyone thinks as a worthy cause? It’s in effect a blank check without meaningful oversight. Their are for example homeopathy charities whose donations are tax deductible.
- charles_f 6y ago
  Isn't budget a part of elections platform, and so democracy? Because certainly when it comes to giving money to people bureaucracy becomes a factor, but then rather than redistributing money, things that you could spend tax money on: - Universal healthcare - Free education - Funding homeless assistance programs - Employment insurance - UBI (granted these last 2 are pretty much just redistributing money) The question is whether you want the few billionaires to decide where to spend the money, or everyone (that is, people who haven't been disenfranchised). AND THEN arguably given the polarization of the US today, I can understand that anyone feels frisky in raising the taxes to found the other side's ideas (being republicans not wanting to fund healthcare or democrats not wanting to fund a wall)