11–20 of 265 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Would you be happy with government-designed (so presumably democratic) tests and quotas for which charities get the tax breaks?
Isn't that already the case? You can't set up a charity to throw parties for yourself, for instance.
I don't necessarily want it to go away entirely, but the tax breaks should be abolished. It's particularly offensive to see the state and local tax deduction (money that actually goes to help one's fellows in the ways they see fit, without being beholden to the whims of the "donor") capped while 503c "donations" remain an unlimited deduction.
>It's particularly offensive to see the state and local tax deduction (money that actually goes to help one's fellows in the ways they see fit, without being beholden to the whims of the "donor") capped while 503c "donations" remain an unlimited deduction. The point of charitable deductions is to incentivize certain types of behavior (ie. charitable donations). On the other hand the SALT deduction is effectively the…
So not only do I need to pay more taxes for the US government to fund almost double my states pro rata aid to places like West Virginia and Mississippi, but I get to pay even higher taxes because my locality actually provides things like sound education.
You know what, I think we should exercise the people’s desire for small government and relocate military bases to the places that pay for them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Isn't that already the case? You can't set up a charity to throw parties for yourself, for instance.
You pretty much can, if you can afford the O(1) legal costs to get it approved and set up. An "art museum" set up next door to the "donor" and open only by appointment with the "donor"? Perfectly legitimate according to the IRS.
Source? Most fundraising events have a deductible and non-deductible portion of the ticket price because the IRS does not look fondly on such practices.
I don't necessarily want it to go away entirely, but the tax breaks should be abolished. It's particularly offensive to see the state and local tax deduction (money that actually goes to help one's fellows in the ways they see fit, without being beholden to the whims of the "donor") capped while 503c "donations" remain an unlimited deduction.
>It's particularly offensive to see the state and local tax deduction (money that actually goes to help one's fellows in the ways they see fit, without being beholden to the whims of the "donor") capped while 503c "donations" remain an unlimited deduction. The point of charitable deductions is to incentivize certain types of behavior (ie. charitable donations). On the other hand the SALT deduction is effectively the…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That’s funny, I feel the exact opposite for the same reasons. I think charitable donations are far better than taxes because the donors get to direct where the money goes and have say over its use. Those giving up their money are in the best position to ensure it is used towards the ends they want. I think direct oversight is a positive attribute and useful in ensuring the altruistic goals are effectively met. I also…
"The ends they want" - as opposed to the ends the recipients want (as expressed through an admittedly imperfect democratic system) - is exactly what I object to. Most "donations" are made to advance a personal agenda at least in part; even when the donor sincerely believes they're doing what's best for people, that's usually a reflection of their personal politics and you'll often find other people believing the exac…
Charitable foundations should have a finite number of years to do their work.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That’s funny, I feel the exact opposite for the same reasons. I think charitable donations are far better than taxes because the donors get to direct where the money goes and have say over its use. Those giving up their money are in the best position to ensure it is used towards the ends they want. I think direct oversight is a positive attribute and useful in ensuring the altruistic goals are effectively met. I also…
"The ends they want" - as opposed to the ends the recipients want (as expressed through an admittedly imperfect democratic system) - is exactly what I object to. Most "donations" are made to advance a personal agenda at least in part; even when the donor sincerely believes they're doing what's best for people, that's usually a reflection of their personal politics and you'll often find other people believing the exac…
How does this argument work for other deductions that also allow you to "fund personal causes"? For instance, the IRS allows you to deduct interest paid on student loans. I can get student loans to study anything I want, and doing so is arguably used to to advance my "personal agenda" (eg. getting a phd in economics so I can work in a thinktank). Should I be worried that the action was a "reflection of their personal politics" and therefore not get a tax break for it?
Feel free to repeat this argument for other deductions that the IRS offers: https://www.irs.gov/credits-deductions-for-individuals
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>It's particularly offensive to see the state and local tax deduction (money that actually goes to help one's fellows in the ways they see fit, without being beholden to the whims of the "donor") capped while 503c "donations" remain an unlimited deduction. The point of charitable deductions is to incentivize certain types of behavior (ie. charitable donations). On the other hand the SALT deduction is effectively the…
Tax deductions shouldn't be incentives for random policy ideas, they should keep the tax system fair by taxing people on income that really is theirs to dispose of freely. The fact that people don't have any choice about whether to pay state or local taxes is precisely why they should be able to deduct them from their federal taxes.
Taxes are one of the main ways the government tries to influence behavior (eg. sin taxes, green energy incentives). What do you suggest should take their place? Or do you think that government shouldn't be in the business of influencing behavior entirely?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>It's particularly offensive to see the state and local tax deduction (money that actually goes to help one's fellows in the ways they see fit, without being beholden to the whims of the "donor") capped while 503c "donations" remain an unlimited deduction. The point of charitable deductions is to incentivize certain types of behavior (ie. charitable donations). On the other hand the SALT deduction is effectively the…
Not really. Flyover and southern states in particular mooch off of the productive locales. So not only do I need to pay more taxes for the US government to fund almost double my states pro rata aid to places like West Virginia and Mississippi, but I get to pay even higher taxes because my locality actually provides things like sound education. You know what, I think we should exercise the people’s desire for small go…
Addressed in my original comment (although it was edited in a few minutes after initial posting so I'll let it slide):
>This doesn't necessarily exclude redistribute policies by the federal government entirely, but doing it by tax rate is baffling no matter how you look at it.