Talk about a moronic statement:
Even as he urged against demonizing the business class, Obama made clear that he thinks affluent Americans have not been doing their fair share as he defended his plan to shrink tax deductions for wealthy taxpayers’ charitable contributions and mortgage interest payments.
~~~“If it’s really a charitable contribution, I’m assuming that [smaller tax savings] shouldn’t be a determining factor as to whether you’re giving that $100 to the homeless shelter down the street,” he said. “I think it is a realistic way for us to raise some revenue from people who benefited enormously over the last several years. It’s not going to cripple them; they’ll still be well-to-do. And ultimately, if we’re going to tackle the serious problems that we’ve got, then in some cases those who are more fortunate are going to have to pay a little bit more.”
Huh?
So let me get this straight. In Obama’s economic world if people make less money they will give more?
Yeeeeeah. Lets look at how much people pay attention to their money:
Recent work by Treasury Department economist David Joulfaian (2000), based on a sample of 1992 decedents, exemplifies this line of research. His preferred estimates suggest that a 1-percent increase in the price of a charitable bequest reduces such bequests by 1.7 percent, and a 1-percent increase in aftertax wealth raises charitable bequests by 1.2 percent—that is, he finds that charitable bequests are more sensitive to price than to wealth.
JustOneMinute has the details of a 2005 study, which we really don’t need. It’s friggin common sense:
The authors compile and contrast the results of a vast number of studies looking at the interplay of tax rates and charitable giving. Although people have many motivations for their philanthropy the conclusion of almost all of these studies points in the same direction – on net people give less when it costs them more.
Obama’s plan is raising taxes on those who earn more, which reducing how much they earn, which means they will give less. Especially considering the fact that he plans on raising the cost of donating.
In a nutshell, it’s a bad thing for charities and the charities know it:
Charity groups are still jittery over a proposed tax change they say could cause wealthy donors to give less, despite assurances from President Obama this week that donations are unlikely to go down because of a reduction in the tax deduction for charitable contributions.
While Obama argues that his administration is trying to make sure low-income donors enjoy the same tax benefits for their giving as high-income donors, charities and the organizations that represent them say they are concerned they could end up paying the price for a more equitable tax code.
“To put any block between the donor and the charity at this time, I think, is not helpful,” said Lisa Hillman, board chairwoman for the Association for Healthcare Philanthropy.
Martin Feldstein (read the whole article, it goes into detail on how his conclusion below was reached):
By 2011, the year in which the Obama administration proposes to start the new tax rule, the projected decrease in giving would surpass $7 billion. With the endowments of charitable institutions sharply reduced by the fall in stock prices, this loss of gifts would make an already bad situation worse.
It all boils down to collectivism as described, glowingly I may add, by Conor Clark at The Atlantic:
Decisions about what will make our community better should be made communally — by pooling revenue and making collective decisions about where and how it should be spent.
I guess we could look at it this way tho:
I think making it more expensive to contribute to charities is a Gramscian move which will certainly impact negatively on charities in the U.S. It’s an unfortunate suggestion which I hope is stopped. On the other hand, when I consider how many university professors, ministers and rabbis and other employees of eleemosynary institutions danced to Obama’s tune there is a certain justice in realizing that the institutions which employ them may find it harder to do so and to compensate them as well as they presently do.
Ah…..the irony.
See author page
……despite assurances from President Obama this week that donations are unlikely to go down because of a reduction in the tax deduction for charitable contributions.
Oh, this man is a piece of work.
Just like abortions will go down now that we have taken off all restrictions.
And people believe him. Oh I am so so sick of this fool. So very sick!
As a typical leftist, Hussein is convinced that the “rich” neither really earn nor appreciate therir money. It just magically appears and therefore dispensing it to charities is no big deal. Besides, the left is entitled to decide how much is too much. These are, after all, the best, most compassionate and least money driven humans on earth. Has anyone ever heard of a lib taking a bribe, selling his political clout or accumulating wealth and property for himself??!!
I look at it this way: Obama wants to make it so that even if you donate your $100 to the shelter down the street, you still get taxed on it! The reason wealthier people get a “higher” deduction on their donations is because the tax rate they are avoiding paying by deducting the contribution from their income is higher. Yes?
Usually a persons view of money, is simply based upon the conditions surrounding his/her means and methods to meet life’s most basic needs. In other words if you work a low paying construction job (with high demands), and can barely pay the heating bill, for many life will seem pretty bleak, hard, and unforgiving. Lets say that same person works hard, ends up owning the company and makes 7 figures, their view of money would be shaped by the earlier circumstances that got them there. That is why there is a stereotype of rich people (many times) being very greedy – they didn’t get there by just tossing money out the window. They know the hard work and diligence it takes to /get/ to the point where wealth is accumulated. I would venture to say that those that are handed wealth, are more apt to say things like:
“donations are unlikely to go down because of a reduction in the tax deduction for charitable contributions.”
On what basis, Obama?
OR
“It’s not going to cripple them; they’ll still be well-to-do. And ultimately, if we’re going to tackle the serious problems that we’ve got, then in some cases those who are more fortunate are going to have to pay a little bit more.”
Its like a lifelong drug addict saying to a person with two healthy kidneys, “hey, you have had a lifetime of health. Its not going to cripple you to give me one of those things” While that may be somewhat true, does it make it right?
When you promote statements like that, you are in essence perpetuating your own view of money on others that are wealthy, assuming that your logic is indeed, their logic. I would say that for those people that give out of their heart, or give for the sake of giving – they will continue to do so. I would say for the others that give for the sake of a write-off or deduction at tax time, will have no reason to continue.
So therefore, his argument breaks down and ultimately any incentive that greedy people had to share their wealth to begin with, has gone down or no longer exists. Any bets if the two or related? I personally feel that the reason many of the rich donate to charities, is ultimately corrupt at heart. But I also believe that the amount of money that they raise for charities, is probably pretty staggering as well. From my experience, most of the giving that the common citizen can muster is through community service or volunteering. While that is greatly needed, money is also needed to pay the heating bill, the food bill, the staff, the mortgage……………………………………
I have come to the conclusion that there isn’t anything sacred to Obama. Unless it fits in his small paradigm of how he views the world or it fits in his agenda, he doesn’t care and will try to change or destroy it.
This idea comes for a man who doesn’t care about his family who live poverty in Kenya and the U.S. This comes from a man who gave very little to charities.
http://franklinslocke.blogspot.com/
Are people idiots?! People believe obama when he says he’s not going to raise taxes, but then he spends the nation into a record deficit and states that only the top ten percent will see increased taxes to cover the deficit. Huh? It’s mathematically impossible, even if you tax the rich at 100%. Hell you could tax the top ten percent twice and it wouldn’t pay for the spending.
@Thomas B.:
Because in today’s world, you can always fool enough of the people enough of the time.
The problem is that he is looking at the economy as a constant. He doesn’t realize that the projections of “growth” that he is looking at will be adversely affected by tax policy.
The more the government taxes, the less people produce. The less of an incentive to give a charitable contribution, the less that contribution will be made.
So, while Obama can simply tax all of that money instead (since it’s not be given), he can only give the percentage taxed.
And his quote “If it’s really a charitable contribution, I’m assuming that [smaller tax savings] shouldn’t be a determining factor as to whether you’re giving that $100 to the homeless shelter down the street,” he said.”
really pisses me off! You cannot and should not legislate altruism!
But, remember, he doesn’t care about the money–he cares about who is paying the money.
When it was explained to him that lowering the Cap Gains tax increased revenues, he insisted that he would still “look at” raising it because it would be MORE FAIR!
It doesn’t matter that it produces less income, it’s who is paying. The people who are RICH are the ones who are supposed to be paying because they “benefited enormously over the last several years. It’s not going to cripple them; they’ll still be well-to-do.”
Really? Who is he to make that determination?
He thinks people are just going to roll over and pay these taxes. They’re not! They will produce less, give less and as a result our economy will shrink even further.
I just don’t think its possible for someone have their head so far up their arse that they can’t see that–it has to be a deliberate drive straight to socialism and the nanny state.
Greetings:
My understanding is that President and Mrs. Obama weren’t much oppressed by their own charitable giving.
the obama’s gave very little to charity. i know people who are ar worse off moneywise who give a far greater percentage of their income to charity. he is a moron and he is doing the tax thing beause he needs to generate money for his budget, which doesn’t make sense in the first place. hell i give a greater percentage of my income to charity than obama does, he just doesn’t think that the well will ever run dry.
I’d like to propose a special referendum and binding election to solve this (and another, bigger) problem:
People can accept the tax schedules in effect as of 12/31/2008; or
People can accept a more confiscatory tax scheme. The new tax scheme would be very simple: start with 25% on the first $200,000 of income, 50% on everything between $200,001 and $400,000, and 90% on everything over $400,000.
Here’s what the ballot might look like:
———————————–
[] I worship Barack Obama. I choose to be taxed according to his brilliant confiscatory tax scheme, and I wish to retain him and Joe Biden as President and Vice President of these United States.
[] I choose to be taxed according to the tax schedules in force as of 12/31/2008, and I want to kick the current President, Vice President, and administration out on their respective buttockses.
——————————–
Jeff V
I’d like to propose that people learn their history and start understanding that the federal government was not a replacement for the tyrants they left in england. In fact, government was supposed to play a small role in the life of statehood. It was there to ensure the basic freedoms, a national defense, and little stuff like, making sure each state didn’t have their own currency, but a common currency that would be accepted by the united (together) states. How things have changed. I want to move to texas, cancel the treaty with the u.s. and start again. Whos with me? Did you know that the federal government has and does, most of its bidding through the interstate commerce act? Just like the government to take something good and inject it with corruption.
This fact is, Republicans are more charitable than Democrats and religious conservatives are more charitable than secular liberals.
http://philanthropy.com/free/articles/v19/i04/04001101.htm
Unless, of course, they are giving away other peoples money. Then they are most charitable indeed.
Is there any doubt in anyones mind that the moron known as POTUS is a socialist???
Every day this abomination pushes this great Republic towards socialism/communism..
This administration will go down as the worst in the history of our country..
Supposedly, there is money earmarked for helping charitable organizations in either the Porkulus bill, or the bloated budget (I forget which). Of course, the money set aside for this purpose is not nearly enough to cover the likely drop in donations, but it is the thought that counts (/sarc). I think Glenn Beck said it was $100 million. Anyway, the real aim seems to be not to destroy charities completely, but to make them dependent upon government largess to some extent and therefor subject to pressure and control by Uncle Sam. As in politically correct guidelines for whom and what the money can be spent on.
Basically, the idea is to “nationalize” private sector charities along with the private sector economy. And if more people end up on the government dole in the process, that is just icing on their socialism cake. I am not sure if this is the actual strategy, but it fits their modus operandi. While I am not absolutely sure that the Obamalons are not just insanely stupid, I tend to lean towards believing that they are destroying one industry after another with planned intentions of expanding government power instead of blundering around like Inspector Clouseau in a china shop.
The sad thing, is that no matter how much the American people turn on these idiots in the next few elections, we are going to have hell to pay just digging half of this big government crap out of our system.
Add to that HR1388 and it’s sister Senate bill, S277… the National Civilian Community Corp bills that the pols have overwhelmingly passed in both House and Senate. These community organizer service groups – from elementary to senior citizens, all dressed in their little uniforms, will be tackling many of the tasks normally performed by charities.
It’s also instructive that Obama thinks someone who makes over $250K donates $100.00 to charity. That matches the giving pattern he and his wife have established, but it doesn’t fit with reality for the people who do the bulk of the giving.
The left should have no problem with this proposal, based on the “logic” that the rich shouldn’t benefit more than others for the tax deductions on their charitable contributions:
Poor Paul is in a 15% tax bracket, and gives $100 a year in charitable donations, so he receives a $15 benefit from his tax deduction. Rich Rob is in the 35% tax bracket, and gives $200 a year to the same charities, so he receives a $56 benefit from his tax deduction.
To be “fair”, Rob REDUCES his contribution to $40, so his “benefit” is now just $14, which is less than Paul’s. Paul is enraged to find out that Rob gave less money to the same charities as he did.
Paul’s insistence on equity in tax benefits actually hurts his own favorite charities.
It’s the new “Marxist Math,” taling liberals across the nation by storm!
Jeff V
Sure Dems have allocated some of the money’s to charities, but they will have to jump through bureaucratic hoops and Congressional mandates to get any of it. You can also bet that the left will fight religious institutions that try to get some of the money to fund their public relief programs. Most likely via a Constitutionality case, where some left-winger will say that giving any such funds to these religious institutions would “violate the separation between church and state.” I think this is mainly intended to hurt said groups.
Why do democrats always speak of the rich as “fortunate” or “lucky?” You never hear terms like “extremely hard working,” ‘highly industrious,” etc. Do they really believe that for somei people, millions of dollars jus fall from the sky, or maybe there’s a “riches fairy” or some other mythical creature that visits the “lucky” people?
Truth be told, there is a creature thatsteals from the poor and gives to the rich (and it ain’t Dennis Moore – h/t to Monty Python); it’s called excessive government!
Jeff V
First, a correction of my post #18: Rich Rob’s initial “benefit” on his charitable contribution should be $70, not $56 (I used 28% instead of 35%; oops.)
Second: Why hasn’t anyone seen the big picture?
/sarcasm_on
The love of money is the root of all evil, right? Well, since it’s too hard to legislate or control love, why not just control money? Better yet, let’s eliminate it all together, at least for individual citizens, reserving it for government controlled international trade! Besides, government knows how best to handle money.
Let’s create a system where everyone goes to a government testing cennter every year, and they get assigned activities based on age, intellect, and physical ability. Everyone lives in government owned ad assigned housing, and they get food and other materials via government delivery (but only what you need, otherwise you’ll get fat and lazy!) Buses take you where you need to go, saving lots of fuel. No more worry about climate change! Forget driving for pleasure or other leisure activities; the omniscient government will choose and schedule your leisure activities for you. And if you need health care, the government will provide everything you need (not what you desire, you selfish workers – only what you need.)
It’ll be utopia! Everything will be provided to you, but only what you really need. There won’t be any jealousy if everyone has exactly as little as everyone else. There will be no worries at all! Everyone contributes to the best of their abilityand everyone consumes based on their needs (.e. what government determines your needs to be.)
What could be more fair? I can’t imagine anyone objecting to such a system, can you?
/sarcasm_off
Jeff V
Jake DeSantis’s very public “I quit” on Wednesday puts the lie to Obama’s bullcrap. DeSantis, in a unintentional but brilliant move (I think), made it abundantly obvious how taxes WILL affect charitable giving. Jake is giving all of the post-tax profits to charity. Thus, when Schmuck Shumer gets his way and taxes all of Jake’s take home pay, there will be nothing left for charities. The only charity that wins in the new Obama era is the biggest charity of all: big fat lazy government.
I’ll be dying to see next year how much of Obama’s 2008 $0.5 million book deal money goes to charity. Anyone want to guess?
The only difference between taxation and armed robbery is paperwork.