Comments about ‘Barack Obama's budget plan could discourage charitable giving’

The tax deduction for charitable giving does not just benefit the wealthy as some want to say. Tax deductions for those who give only irritates those who don't give.

Take away deductions for charitable giving and I will still give, I just wont have as much disposable income left to spend for other things, a sacrifice worth making but just like all other taxes it takes away from building the general economy.

We do not have a problem of not being taxed enough, we DO have a problem of out of control spending.

Re: "If someone in the 36-percent tax bracket gives $1,000 to charity and deducts it from his income tax, the donation costs him only $640. The government picks up the rest. That's a subsidy."

This quote tells exactly why the wealthy currently have an unfair edge in charitable giving, just as they do in many other aspects of tax law.

President Obama is definitely on the right track with this proposal. Of course, the Deseret News, which always is slow to detect anything good coming from the president, won't like it.

W.P.E. Worst President Ever.

The budget is a facade. It will never pass the senate even if Obama's incredibly uninformed chief of staff, Mr. Lew, takes it there with a brass band. It is election year fluff. Try telling churches, the Salvation Army, Nature Conservancy, etc. and every college and university in the country that donations will be restricted. The shame is that Mr. Obama even suggested it. Is he so out of touch with reality that this silly and counterproductive idea was even floated?

Or it might not. Keep up the fear level.

There are several ways to cut the amount that wealthy people can deduct on their income taxes. One way is to cut the top marginal tax rate to 28%. If they eliminated the income tax altogether it would drop all the way to zero.

If they want to solve the financial problems our government is experiencing they should start with Social Security. First we need to realize that sudden changes create shock waves in any system. We need a gradual transition. When Social Security was introduced the average live span was 64.5 years and you could retire at age 65, six months after you were dead on average. Why not link the Social Security retirement age to life expectancy? Make the retirement age 3 years less than life span on average and adjust the retirement age by a maximum of 6 months each year? Yea, I would have to work a few more years but what is wrong with that? At least my kids would not inherit a bankrupt nation.

Is it really charitable giving if you get a benefit in return?

This is all part of his plan to force more people dependent on the government. There is no question that charities will suffer dramatically from this legislation. But the Left arrogantly think that we the public are not smart enough to determine what charity would be best to support, but the government knows best. . . .

Fortunately I really don't think this bill has an eyeball's chance to get through Congress as is. I suspect it is a political appeal to his liberal base.

@Kalindra

"Is it really charitable giving if you get a benefit in return?"

YES! A thousand times, YES! There is ALWAYS a benefit to charitable giving? Do you not believe in Karma? Why does it matter WHAT the benefit is if the tax code encourages charitable giving? Private charitable donations are far superior to government plans to 'spread the wealth around' as Obama likes to do. Can you name me one government program that does not waste taxpayer money?

@kalindra-

The point of the charitable donations is to increase the amount of money that is able to go through volunteer and nonprofit groups who sacrifices substantially to give as much as possible from every dollar that is given to them to the poor, the mentally ill, the drug addict, the abused women, women's health, and orphaned and adopted children. The benefit these groups provide to the community at large is tremendous and anyone who has participated with these groups will see that with less funds there will be more downtrodden and destitute people left without any help.

Shame on you Obama! This proposal will only hurt Americans everywhere, the poor and the rich. It hurts all Americans even if their donation is only to avoid being robbed by Uncle SAM! Shame on you Obama

Less than 30 cents on the dollar gets to those on the government dole.
Most private charities exceed 70%. The LDS fast offering fund gets 100% to those in need.

Considering how much more efficient private charities are wouldn't make more sense to give a tax credit rather than a deduction if they give to a charity that duplicates a government program?

Private charities are also much more effective in changing the lives of people because they require people to help themselves.

We could ween all those people off of government charity and then off private charity and move them to self reliance. They would become productive citizens.

Your choice!

War on drugs. War on terrorism. Cold war against communism. Now we have war against wealth. Class warfare brought to you by liberals, progressives, and democrats. Yep, the American Dream of prosperity is a bad thing now days.

The rich (those earning over $250K according to Obama) also pay 80% (or is it higher) of the federal income taxes in the US. They contribute $billions annually to charities and the government wants more of that money...because the federal government knows how to use it better. Right.

It was stated in the article that the wealthy who contribute to charities are really getting a subsidized break on their charitable giving. And this is bad because...? Remember, they are already paying most of the taxes in the US.

What do you call the poor, who pay no taxes? Aren't they getting a 100% subsidy for benefits they receive from the federal government? Isn't this the same as the rich getting a subsidy for their charitable contribution? The difference being 100% (poor) subsidy for one group, 35% for another (wealthy).

So much of what Barack proposes is completely wrong. How did this man get elected? And who voted for him?

Obama promised change and he has kept his promise. Taxes are up, unemployment rate is up, National Debt is up, employees of the government have increased, gas price is up, oil price is up, People receiving Food stamps is up, and People in poverty are up. Some things have dropped though median income has gone down.

But we do have change.

Morgan Duel, that's some incredibly simplistic reasoning there.

"Is it really charitable giving if you get a benefit in return?"

It's certainly more charitable to donate 15% to a non-profit organization committed to helping the poor and giving 15% to the government than it is to give the full 30% to the government.

I am all for finding ways to raise more revenue for the federal government to reduce the federal debt. My personal belief is that everyone should be treated the same and the tax code should be as short as possible.

However we should reduce spending as much as possible, before we seek to raise more revenue. If we balance the budget with increased revenue, it will reduce the likelihood that we will make the spending cuts that are necessary. Wants should be eliminated, needs should be maintained. There is plenty of room for reduction, even in the military.

I am an active Army Major who works in Army Acquisition. These are my own views and do not necessarily represent those of the Army or the Federal government.

Charity as exists in the United States is a business operated for profit. Thousands of charities are seeking to take the money from working people and the rich. And the government not only helps them with their costs, the government forces all taxpayers to support all charitable entities.

Charity for a reward is not charity. Charity as a business is not charity. Business operations owned by churches and religions are not charity.

Recently on Fox News, in a discussion of the Catholic hospital thing, the Catholic spoke up saying that âwe own the insurance companyâ.

As a matter of my own personal conscience I do not want to be forced to support Catholicism or any other religion or their businesses.

As a citizen of the United States, I want equal treatment before the law. I want equal rights and freedoms that now being granted to citizen corporations, churches, and businesses.

Stop the tax deduction. Stop the exemption from sales tax. Stop forcing people to pay for someone elseâs private beliefs. Stop making charity a profitable business. Make religion stand on itâs own merits and not the force of government.

Looking at how purportedly non-profit credit balance reducing organizations appear to blur the line between profit and non-profit organizations and how difficult it is for the ordinary taxpayer to get any itemized tax deduction for donating to a non-profit, it seems unfair that rich people get to benefit and reduce even further their tax load, donating to perhaps fuzzy non-profits while the average American doesn't get the same opportunity or freedom to do the same. I tend to support Obama's move toward equalizing the fairness of itemized tax contributions and at least for the rich appear to take away their ability to pay their fair share for public services the rest of Americans have to pay for no matter what.

This posturing by the opponents of the President is ridiculous. First, the cap on charitable deductions will have zero effect on 98 or 99% of us (if not more). Second, government subsidizes the rich and the President wants to end it. You can rationalize all you want, but this proposal is fair and reasonable. It will make virtually no difference for the mega rich in reality.

Re: "If someone in the 36-percent tax bracket gives $1,000 to charity and deducts it from his income tax, the donation costs him only $640. The government picks up the rest. That's a subsidy."

Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.

I can't think of a better quote to show the differences between conservatives and liberals. Conservatives believe the $1000 belongs to the guy who earned it. When he gives it to charity, he is still out $1000 from his personal account so don't tell me it only costs him $640. By carefully choosing a good charity, he has simply moved $360 from a bloated, inefficient system to a more productive one. As a result of that choice, more poor people are actually helped. The government didn't "pick up" or subsidize anything. It was never the government's money to begin with.

If liberals were really concerned about helping the poor, they would applaud this effort. Instead, it just shows their true motives which are to get as much money and power into the hands of big government.