AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

Yes he is on record with his intention of limiting charitable contributions that can be deducted by the rich. Among other things that are really really bad ideas. (That wasn't my point in that post, but ALV and I are probably on the same page with that nevertheless.)

Foxfyre wrote:

Yes he is on record with his intention of limiting charitable contributions that can be deducted by the rich. Among other things that are really really bad ideas. (That wasn't my point in that post, but ALV and I are probably on the same page with that nevertheless.)

Quote:

Paul N. Van de Water, a senior fellow at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, said in his own report on the effects of limiting the deduction for charitable giving that, with more people having access to paid health care, there would be a corresponding drop in the need for charitable agencies to provide uncompensated health care, thus offsetting the loss in donations.

Source:

http://www.catholicreview.org/subpages/storyworldnew-new.aspx?action=5871 wrote:

Catholic Review

Will Charities Survive Obama?
By Michael P. Tremoglie,
The Bulletin
Friday, March 06, 2009

Already reeling from the effects of the declining stock market, charities may now have to bare the brunt of tax changes. President Barack Obama’s proposal for limiting the tax deductibility for charitable contributions by the wealthy has caused consternation among many charities.

“The Obama administration has proposed a limit of the deductibility of charitable contributions for those whose tax bracket is higher than 28 percent to only 28 percent,” said Ryan Ellis, tax policy director for Americans for Tax Reform.” For example, if someone is in the 39 percent bracket and they make a $100,000 contribution, they would only be permitted to deduct $28,000 instead of $39,000.”

“We are watching it closely. We are talking to our gift programs to see how it will affect us,” said Melissa Temme, a Salvation Army spokesperson. “It may have a negative effect but Americans are extremely generous. We will have to assess what it will do.”

But according to Mr. Ellis, the tax breaks are written to provide incentives to make charitable contributions. Without the incentives, there might not be as many donations.

“These things are in the tax code to incentivize,” said Mr. Ellis. “If you cut top marginal tax rates you are disincentivizing. Charitable deductions might be affected.”

But the Obama plan is running into into opposition from key Democrats in Congress who worry that not only charities would be hurt, but the housing market also.

The Senate Finance Committee chairman, U.S. Sen. Max Baucus, D - Mont., questioned whether the proposal was viable.

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, whose appointment was delayed because of he failed to pay federal income taxes that he owed, testified Wednesday about the tax increase before the Senate Finance Committee. He said tax increases on families making more than $250,000 a year are necessary to make a down payment on health care reform and to limit future budget deficits. But, he said, he was willing to work with lawmakers on proposals they objected to.

“We recognize there are other ways to do this,” Mr. Geithner told committee members.

Mr. Geithner and White House budget director Peter Orszag returned to Capitol Hill on Wednesday for a second day of hearings on Mr. Obama’s $3.6-trillion tax and spending proposal. Both faced tough questions about the tax package.

Mr. Obama’s budget calls for setting aside $634 billion over the next 10 years as a down payment on health-care reform. Half the money would come from tax increases on upper-income earners, the other half from cuts to Medicare and Medicaid.

Mr. Obama’s budget calls for two tax increases on couples making more than $250,000 and individuals making more than $200,000. He wants to increase the top tax rates from 35 percent to 39.6 percent by allowing a tax cut enacted under President George W. Bush to expire in 2011. But he also wants to limit the deductions those families can claim for charitable donations, mortgage interest and state and local taxes.

The higher tax rates are a good bet to become law because Obama campaigned on the change and Congress would not have to do anything to enact them. Once the Bush tax cuts expire at the end of 2010, the higher rates would take effect.

On Tuesday, U.S. Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., another Democrat with tax problems, who is chairman of the tax-writing House Ways and Means Committee, also said he had reservations about the proposal.

“I would never want to adversely affect anything that is charitable or good,” the N.Y. Democrat said.

Republicans have been even more critical of the proposal, saying it would reduce charitable donations at a time when many charities are struggling.

U.S. Sen. Pat Roberts, R-Kan., questioned the Treasury Secretary on the wisdom of penalizing small businesses, homeowners and those making charitable contributions with tax increases.

“In this current economic climate, many charitable organizations across the country are being asked to do more with less as donors tighten their belts while more people turn to charities for assistance,” Mr. Roberts said. “One analysis found that if the proposed tax changes in the budget were in effect in 2006, total itemized contributions by the highest income households would have dropped by 4.8 percent or $3.87 billion.”
http://thebulletin.us/articles/2009/03/06/top_stories/doc49b112b3e43df726442997.txt

Foxfyre wrote:

Yes he is on record with his intention of limiting charitable contributions that can be deducted by the rich. Among other things that are really really bad ideas. (That wasn't my point in that post, but ALV and I are probably on the same page with that nevertheless.)

Limiting is not the same thing as eliminating. I am not against Obama limiting the amount of taxable deductions one can take from charitable deductions in the slightest. And, if your theory that Conservatives are more charitable than Liberals holds true, we should see no drop in charitable donations whatsoever. Wouldn't you agree? After all, you have asserted that the innate charity of Conservatives is what is responsible for their larger charitable behavior. It is a critical component of your 'MAC' idea. So why would that behavior be in any way affected by the personal, monetary gain one gets from the tax policy associated with it?

Cycloptichorn

I'm not affirming nor denying that. If you have evidence that it is the case, and that actions taken have been unconstitutional, post it, and then I will address it.

Are you going to answer my question as to what constitutional authority gives Congress the right to impose punative taxes on a targeted group not because what the group did was illegal but because Congress has been embarrassed?

It's the fricken power of the purse. They can put whatever strings they want on federal funds. If Congress gives you a ton of federal money to pump up your business for the public good, and you put a huge chuck of it in your greedy pocket...

I understand the motive and the reason. But what constitutional authority exists that allows Congress to do that?

Mind you Congress authorized the bailout loans and, right or wrong, smart or stupid, the groups receiving them accepted them on good faith with specific terms. Those terms included authorization for those ridiculous bonuses. That authorization was put there on purpose and, due to us electing mostly numbnuts to Congress, they either didn't read the bill or didn't care at the time.

So, now that Congress got caught and is exposed on that issue and they are embarrassed and their approval rating is deeper in the toilet than it already was, they want to fix it by punishing those they gave the money to.

But what constitutional authority allows them to target a relatively small group of Americans for punative taxation--a punative measure that is not applied equally across the board?

(Noting that as previous documented, it was Chris Dodd and the Obama administration who added the language authorizing the bonuses to the legislation. Ironically, Dodd and Obama were No. 1 and 2 in receving campaign donations from AIG.)

But what can we do other than continue to send the teabags--actually just the tag and string or they'll never be allowed to get to the congressional members--and voice our displeasure and anger?

Surely there is some proactive middle ground for we the people that fits in there somewhere between Ican's call for impeachment and the kool-ade drinkers' blind faith, acceptance, and defense of the messiah and all his disciples in Congress?

(Ican knows I'm teasing because we aren't quite on the same page on that impeachment thing. But we're close. Damn close.)

(I'm still not convinced that you and TKO are not the same person.)

I hope you're right ALV. I hope you're right. I've lived a pretty long time now and have seen a lot of tragedy, recessions, government corruption, and prophecies of gloom and doom that never materialized. But I have never experienced an American public as brainwashed and/or as out of touch with reality themselves as what we've seen in the last few years and it does worry me. Somebody with Barack Obama's views could never have been elected even 20 years ago, but he now has a whole congregation of worshipers who adore and defend him to the last word.

But your faith in the press may not be entirely misplaced here. As previously posted--I think in this thread--I have seen some promising signs of honesty and integrity emerging as some of the most religiously leftwing sources are beginning to murmur some doubts, and every now and then you see the 'incompetent' word actually used.

Incompetent so far in many of his responsibilities, obviously as the gaffes pile up, but every president needs some on-the-job training. But incompetent in his intentions and vision? That's the dangerous part. I'm afraid he does intend some pretty damaging things, and he is smart enough to tell his critics to butt out because he won. He knows what power he holds.

Lets hope there are enough patriots left in America's media to provide some checks and balances.