U.S. charities fear proposed tax law change

Reuters: U.S. charities fear proposed tax law change  (HT: Victor Claar)

ATLANTA, Feb 26 (Reuters) - Proposed tax law changes in President Barack Obama's budget could hit charities hard even as demand for their services rises due to the worst recession in decades, U.S. charitable groups warned on Thursday.

Under the plan announced in Obama's budget on Thursday, deductions on charitable contributions for people earning $250,000 a year or more would be limited to 28 percent, down from the current 35 percent. ...

It is just incredible to me that in a time of hardship the government wants to make it less likely that people will give of their private resources. Although, on a cynical note, I see this as more confirmation of Obama's aim to squeeze out the mediating institutions of society (family, churches, voluntary associations, etc.) as primary care givers and make every aspect of life an extension of public policy.

Comments

[David Brush]

Michael,

Where are the numbers supporting a 'less likely' claim? I don't disagree, but I would like to see the numbers. If say those making over $250,000 make up as Obama claims 5% or less of the population(5% = 15,191,232) and everyone gave a fully exempt 35% ($87,500) that would put the average yearly donations at 1.3 Trillion dollars. Either way I know the giving is far below that, if Joe Biden is any indicator. Neither will this cap prevent anyone from contributing at the same levels, unless their primary focus of giving is their own benefit.

What are your thoughts on the actual dollar amount this will affect?

[Michael W. Kruse]

I don't know what the projected change in dollar amount would be. If I ever nail down a good estimate I'll post it here. I think the real question is what percentage of all charitable giving comes from these highest brackets. If the percentage is somewhat high, then a small change can have significant impact.

I have questions either way. If the dollar amounts are significant, then why would we want to suck the money out of the charitable sector? If the amounts are insignificant, then why take the symbolic act of discouraging charitable giving? Either way it seems a bad move.

A couple of years ago, the K.C. MO library had a display of '30s photographs taken from around the country by a government photographer. One picture was a bust shot of a man and woman from the Salvation Army singing behind a pulpit. The caption beside the photo said that the Roosevelt Administration expressly prohibited government photographers from photographing Salvation Army folks doing charitable work because it would undercut people's perception that government programs were providing the essential relief to citizens. There is at least a seventy year history of activist government trying to squeeze out and minimalize these types of efforts.

[vanskaamper]

And, of course the next cynical question is to ask, "why this ongoing strategy?"