President Obama's budget plan contains a tax provision which will limit itemized deductions for charitable contributions.
First, isn't Obama the man who calls for a Nation of Service? His own website lays out his dedication to charity and volunteer work. This blatant hypocrisy is becoming quite routine with this young administration.
Second, does anyone think this is a good idea? Is this really the best way to pay for Obama's bloated budget?
I'm not implying the only reason philanthropic people donate to charity is for the tax break -- I'm a cynic by nature, but I do believe there are many decent people left in America.
However, I do believe there will be some negative impact on charitable donations.
The biggest problem I have with this policy is that once again, the Liberal Social-Crats are once again usurping individual freedom and legislating what to do with your money.
It another example of wealth redistribution, Obama's Robin Hood-onomics!
The plan is simple: use your tax dollars to spend on "charitable" causes which the Democrats see fit to serve their needs. That is, they will use our tax dollars as a power grab to buy a permanent voting majority.
Americans must never trust government to spend our money more wisely than us, especially when it comes to charity.
The Washington Times reports:
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.
There is it, clear and simple, the CRAPulus Spending bill already includes money to support "nonprofits and charities". But it's simply not up to the government to decide where our philanthropy goes! It's like welfare and other entitlements.
Americans are altruistic by nature, but the government cannot tell me where to spend my money! You cannot force "charity" through legislation!
Step by step, our freedom is being stolen from on to create Obama's "Vision" of a Totalitarian, Socialist State.
The Next Right provides more evidence why this is a poor idea:
Moreover, this attacks Obama's base. Michael Barone noted to me today that universities can't be happy about this. Add to that list churches, the arts, the environmental groups, and organizations that serve the poor. This is a transfer of wealth not from the rich to the poor -- because the rich already given the money away, in many cases to groups that serve the poor -- but from the best kind of charitable aid to the worst kind -- government.
This is a massive opportunity for conservatives to kill something Obama is foregrounding in a broad bipartisan alliance. Powerful constituencies on the left could join the opposition. And this is a direct slap at the nation's churches, which direct the a big percentage of charitable aid in this country.
The Atlantic reported this bit of hypocrisy:
I asked an administration official to respond to the question about whether charitable contributions will decline if itemized deductions are reduced for those making more than $250,000:
"Right now, if a middle class family donates a dollar to their favorite charity, they get a 15-cent deduction, but Warren Buffet and Bill Gates make the same donation and they get a deduction that is more than twice that. The proposal walks that back some of the way because it's time that everyone is responsible for our future."
That is simply not true. This tax provision will have a deep impact on non-profit charities in addition to our liberties.
Obama is arrogant, radical, dishonest and dangerous.
This is all about control. Liberals don’t want charitable organizations doing what they want to do, take care of the less fortunate. It is their future voting block. They want to run them out of business, so they can have a monopoly. Also, I would not put it past Liberals that this is an attack on religion too. You cannot run a church without donations.
ReplyDeletehttp://franklinslocke.blogspot.com/
what about Universities and other high schools and grammar schools which rely on donations?
ReplyDeleteIndeed, every single thing Obama has done is a power grab or "monopoly" as you put it.