: President's plan limits philanthropic giving.


Iolaus
02-28-2009, 03:42 PM
Charity tax limits upset many
Stephen Dinan (Contact) and David R. Sands (Contact)

Democrats and Republicans poured cold water on President Obama's budget plan to cut down on wealthy taxpayers' charitable giving tax deductions, the second of his ambitious cost-savings plans to earn lawmakers' scorn, and underscoring the legislative minefield he is entering.

By reaching so broadly with his $4 trillion 2010 budget plan, and the giant deficits it will incur, Mr. Obama put his hard-won election mandate on the line, saying if lawmakers want to do big things - from boosting education and clean energy technology to overhauling health care - they will have to find ways to pay for it.

From his plan to cut payments to farmers, which both parties all but ruled out this week, to his goal of a complex cap-and-trade system to control greenhouse gas emissions, lawmakers predicted Mr. Obama will have to survive challenges from political friends and foes alike.

"I work for the American people, and I'm determined to bring the change that the people voted for last November.And that means cutting what we don't need to pay for what we do," Mr. Obama said in announcing his budget.

[....]

Still, the charitable giving deduction reduction, which would limit deductions for couples making $250,000 or individuals making $200,000, provoked the most heat Thursday. Mr. Obama is counting on that provision to raise $179.8 billion over 10 years.

"Some of the reforms and offsets contained or referenced in the budget, such as the limitation on itemized deductions, raise concerns and will require more study as we determine the best policies for getting America back on track," said Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, Montana Democrat.

Roberton Williams, senior fellow at the Tax Policy Center, said it's impossible to calculate the exact effects of all the tax changes, but said the overall result is clear - less philanthropic giving.

"This will lead people to give less to charities if they behave the way they've behaved in the past," he said. "We've already seen a drop in giving as a result of the economic collapse. On top of that, this will just reduce the amount of giving."

Asked about that, Office of Management and Budget Director Peter Orszag said Mr. Obama took care of that by giving charities government money to make up part of the difference.

"Contained in the recovery act, there's $100 million to support nonprofits and charities as we get through this period of economic difficulty," he said.

He disputed that giving would drop, and said an economic recovery will help charities, too.

[....]

I tend to agree with what this reader said in the comments...

Obama does not want the private sector to fund charities, only the government. He wants almost total government domination of all funding for these organizations to control which organizations flourish or die. This is more of his grand scheme of socialist planning and control of US citizens.

As the article states...

Asked about that, Office of Management and Budget Director Peter Orszag said Mr. Obama took care of that by giving charities government money to make up part of the difference.

"Contained in the recovery act, there's $100 million to support nonprofits and charities as we get through this period of economic difficulty," he said.

Take from everybody, and give back to the ones you approve of. The ones you don't like will wither and die; eventually, all you will have left is government run or controlled "charities."

Another comment brings up more concerns. We're not just talking about "religious" groups getting the shaft here; all non-profits will be hit.

Don't think of it as "charities" think of it as "not for profit" organizations, like the MS Foundation, Susan Komen Foundation, March of Dimes, museums, foundations that support ethnic scholarships, PBS, Sierra Club, Ducks Unlimited, Natural Resources Defence Council, American Heart Association. Also Museums that celebrate cultural diversity, Big Sisters and Big Brothers, and on and on. Decimated by bad judgement of a rookie administration whose eyes are bigger than what we can stomach.

loarmistead
02-28-2009, 05:02 PM
Why specifically attack charitable giving deductions?

Because he's an ultra-leftist who wants the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT to control all aspects of charity and care.

I tried to give him the benefit of the doubt, but in the end he is proving to be just as liberal as I thought.

Bad choice, America. Bad choice. This man is going to do irreparable damage.

Audra
02-28-2009, 05:08 PM
They don't think charitable giving will suffer? Too funny. My first question when I give is that tax deductibility of the donation. It affects whether I give and how much. If there was no tax benefit I without a doubt would donate less.

Iolaus
02-28-2009, 05:20 PM
Bad choice, America. Bad choice. This man is going to do irreparable damage.

I've been trying to avoid most of the "poking fun at Obama" jokes, and I try to keep my criticisms factual, giving him the respect the office holder deserves (not always successfully, I know); but this one seems apropos...

O.B.A.M.A.
One Big A** Mistake, America.

MikeW
02-28-2009, 05:28 PM
I've been trying to avoid most of the "poking fun at Obama" jokes, and I try to keep my criticisms factual, giving him the respect the office holder deserves (not always successfully, I know); but this one seems apropos...

O.B.A.M.A.
One Big A** Mistake, America.

X2

drl2t
02-28-2009, 05:32 PM
Great article. I was just talking to some of my friends and family about this the other day. What sense does it make for me to contribute from my weekly check to the United Way and Susan G. Komen Fund if the government is going to control them anyway? Especially if they are going to "give" them my tax money.

I have always viewed charity as a choice that I make to support whoever and whatever I want, not what the government thinks is best.

poopy_pants
02-28-2009, 05:42 PM
Wonder how the United Negro College Fund or the NAACP feels about this?