Obama Raising Taxes On Charitable Donations

  •  February 28, 2009

Yes it’s a tax hike on the rich, so according to the left and their class warfare ideology it’s ok. But it’s a tax hike on the charitable giving of the rich. And that’s going to have a disproportionate impact on charities, because “the rich” have and give more money to charity than any other demographic.

The White House proposal would reach into these deductions and effectively levy an additional tax of 7% on charitable contributions and mortgage interest (and up to 11.6% if Obama’s tax increases go into effect) for those in the highest tax bracket — in other words, those with the most ability to support America’s charities.

Nothing says hope and change like punishing charitable giving with new taxes.

Tags: , , ,


«
»
  • http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/america_is_back/#c397018 DINO

    Apples & oranges.

    In your hasty reply to me you are talking about the wealthy having less to contribute due to higher taxes.

    What the post is about is the proposed change in the deductability of the donation. As is stands now, those in the high brackets get a larger deduction than someone in the lower bracket giving the same contribution.

    You’d know what this proposal means if you had merely read the actual budget intro as I did last night.

    Now go on. Rationalize why someone with MORE money should get a better deduction for donating the same amount of money as someone with less.

    You people just don’t have the capacity for critical, deliberative thinking. Your whole ideology, including your leaders, have reverted to simply making fun of things you don’t understand.

    Put another way, you are chidish, non-intellectual brainstems.

    And you wonder why thoughtful, intelligent liberals have an attitude of superiority.

  • http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/america_is_back/#c397018 DINO

    Well wait a minute. I thought you cons, especially the rich ones you worship, were the REAL generous folks. Are you now telling me it was only given for the tax deduction? Say it ain’t so!

    There’s no reason to allow the rich to take a bigger deduction for a donation than a not rich one. That’s all this change does.

    The days of bending over for the wealthy are OVER. Get used to it.

  • sayanything-4625

    Really just a guideline to go by, not really a law so much.

    So, you think that free speech is just a guideline? How about unreasonable seizures? Why did you guy’s get so upset about when we tapped the phone calls of terrorists again? After all, its just a guideline. So Habeas Corpus is out? The government can throw ole Buzz in prison and hold you indefinitely, without charges? I’m sure you won’t mind me quartering a squad of troops in your house now Buzz. Upkeep on 9 men may be hard for you, but remember the Constitution is only a guideline and not really a law. Oh, how will the Courts make anyone “fall back into line” if they don’t have the Constitution?

  • Mickey

    This guy wants to radically change the entire country into a European style socialist state where all is controlled by the government. He is crushing the concept of investing and giving by individuals. This is a very dangerous man.

  • jimmypop

    You think you’re going to be rich one day and when you are you want special perks too.

    like tax evasion until someone tries to appoint me to a government position? or when i am caught not doing my fair share i dont get in trouble even thou its $100′s of thousands of dollars?

  • jimmypop

    its not us that say it… its the national statistics… cons earn less and give more. you may not like it, but thats the way it is.

  • http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/america_is_back/#c397018 DINO

    Apples & Oranges again, Evan. You’re just playing aspirational politics. You think you’re going to be rich one day and when you are you want special perks too.

    Potato, I just can’t take you seriously knowing that you took unemployment and that welfare helped your family when you were young. If not for that welfare you might not be able to read much less write those overwrought, drama Queen posts.

  • http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/america_is_back/#c397018 DINO

    Oh ouch!

    So what mediocre town do you call home?

  • http://proof-proofpositive.blogspot.com/ proof_positive

    As is (sic) stands now, those in the high brackets get a larger deduction than someone in the lower bracket giving the same contribution.

    Hello? McFly??? the people in the higher brackets are paying more in taxes! Why does anyone even bother trying to get anything through that thick skull of yours?

    Put another way, you are chidish (sic), non-intellectual brainstems.

    Way to educate us, dim Demstem!

    And you wonder why thoughtful, intelligent liberals have an attitude of superiority.

    If you ever meet one, send him our way!

  • sayanything-5371

    The days of bending over for the wealthy are OVER.

    Dino, you are going to break your sugar daddy’s heart.

  • Evan

    Dino rights: “How much they make or pay in taxes should have no bearing on the amount of deductability of a charitable donation.”

    And yet somehow how much a person earns does have a bearing on the tax rate one pays. You see, socialists see nothing unfair with a graduated income tax rates, but all of a sudden want flat percentage charitable and itemized deduction rates.

    Therefore if a person earns $500,000, he pays marginal tax rates of 39% under Obama, yet if he gives away the $500,000 he only gets tax savings for part of that, and would owe the government over $50,000.

    On the other hand, if a person earn $50,000, he pays marginal tax rates of 15%, and if he gives away the $50,000 he gets full tax savings on all of that and owes nothing.

    Not to mention all the credits and deductions that high income people get no deduction for, that low income people already get (earned income credit, saver’s credit, child credit, IRA phaseouts, etc.) You see for those deductions, in the mind of socialists, what you make apparently should have bearning on what you can deduct.

  • bill-tb

    There go the charities, under the bus.

  • pparets

    dino said…

    And you wonder why thoughtful, intelligent liberals have an attitude of superiority.

    Acually we don’t… because thoughtful, intelligent liberals – while rare – don’t talk, act or think like you do, nor do they wallow in your pseudo-superiority.

    You are just a little homosexual living in an mediocre West Coast town. Get over yourself, dino.

  • sayanything-5371

    Yes you are correct, much like unions are outdated the constitution is also outdated. Really just a guideline to go by, not really a law so much. Like Bush, Obama should just does what he wants, enact any policy until the supreme court makes him fall back in line.

    Buzznut, you sound like you might be better off in The Peoples Paradise of Cuba, or the Peoples Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela. You really should go. They would love you there.

  • Mickey

    Gentlemen, my advice when dealing with “IT” is:

    Never argue with an IDIOT. He will only drag you down to his level and beat you experience.

    DO NOT FEED THE TROLL. IGNORE IT AND LET IT DIE.

  • jpe

    It’ll be interesting to see how this plays out. On the one hand, the donors will get less tax bang for their charitable buck. OTOH, I don’t think the deduction for the wealthy is as big a motivating factor as its assumed. In a weird way, a reduction in the deduction may accelerate charitable giving. One of the few tax considerations that does come into play for a wealthy donor is whether the taxpayer is in AMT. If she is, she’ll typically defer her planned giving until a year in which she isn’t in AMT and can get the full 35% deduction.

    The effect of the deduction limitation will be to eliminate AMT-planning in charitable giving (the proposed cap is the AMT rate of 28%), with the upshot that people won’t put off their giving in any given year in which they’re in AMT.

    That’s for the super-wealthy, though. Effects may be more pronounced for people making less than 1MM.

  • Buzz

    He should remove the cap on SS also, that would help alot.

  • http://magyartruth.blogspot.com/ Chief RZ

    They are trying to make honest people dishonest, but it will not work. I will continue to play by the rules while pointing out that those in the socialist cabinet have not and did not pay their own income taxes. The fact that they are setting a bad example for all law-abiding citizens is besides the point.

    I will not lower myself to their level.

  • http://proof-proofpositive.blogspot.com/ proof_positive

    There’s a reason people like me argue that elections have consequences, and it’s because of Barack Obama’s tax and spending proposals announced yesterday. Obama’s massive $315 billion tax increase that violates a basic fairness principle in our tax code: that no matter who you are, we don’t count a dollar of income for taxable purposes once deductions for things like charitable donations and mortgage interest are taken into account. Contrary to the White House’s smarmy insinuations, the poor and the rich are treated exactly the same under current law.

    The White House proposal would reach into these deductions and effectively levy an additional tax of 7% on charitable contributions and mortgage interest (and up to 11.6% if Obama’s tax increases go into effect) for those in the highest tax bracket — in other words, those with the most ability to support America’s charities.

    -Patrick Ruffini

  • jimmypop

    You think you’re going to be rich one day and when you are you want special perks too.

    like tax evasion until someone tries to appoint me to a government position? or when i am caught not doing my fair share i dont get in trouble even thou its $100′s of thousands of dollars?

  • http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/america_is_back/#c397018 DINO

    How much they make or pay in taxes should have no bearing on the amount of deductability of a charitable donation.

  • sayanything-5371

    Obama has said that he views the Constitution as an obstacle that was written for a different time that is no longer valid. And yet he took an oath to uphold and defend it as many of us did who served in the military.

    Now Obama is proving how little respect he has for our Constitution and is breaking his oath. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that the government can take money away from people who earn it and give it away to people who don’t. We need to vote out every jerk in the house, senate and this idiot who calls himself president.

    Our government is broken and self serving and nothing else.

  • Buzz

    Obama has said that he views the Constitution as an obstacle that was written for a different time that is no longer valid.

    Yes you are correct, much like unions are outdated the constitution is also outdated. Really just a guideline to go by, not really a law so much. Like Bush, Obama should just does what he wants, enact any policy until the supreme court makes him fall back in line.

  • welder4

    no comment :

  • rog

    wow. you libs are unbelievable, and complete assholes
    this experiment with keynesiam economicis is a complete disaster. The american people are understanding now how bad socialism SUCKS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • http://proof-proofpositive.blogspot.com/ proof_positive

    Well wait a minute. I thought you cons, especially the rich ones you worship, were the REAL generous folks. Are you now telling me it was only given for the tax deduction?

    No, dim Demstem! As Rob explained paying less to the government in taxes leaves more that can be given to charity.

    I thought

    Ah! There’s the problem! You didn’t!

  • http://sayanythingblog.com robport

    Well wait a minute. I thought you cons, especially the rich ones you worship, were the REAL generous folks. Are you now telling me it was only given for the tax deduction? Say it ain’t so!

    It’s a little sad that I have to explain the math to you, but here’s how it goes.

    A given individual has “x” amount of dollars available for charitable giving. The government, “g,” raises its cut of “x” thus leaving less money “y” for the charities.

    x-g=y.

    The bigger the government, g, the less “y” is.

    Why does Obama hate poor people?

  • http://suitepotato.blogspot.com/ sayanything-4808

    Dino:

    The days of bending over for the wealthy are OVER. Get used to it.

    I’m sure your boyfriends of any given night will be seriously crushed to hear that, but your bank account much more.

    Meanwhile… In some quarters where large amounts of charity are done for its own sake but the tax write-off useful for making sure there are churn funds to build business to keep the income high enough to keep giving that, will now do less because they won’t have the money to give.

    If you impoverish the rich and upper middle class, they won’t have any money to give you. They will no longer try to be rich because it will be too hard and have no real payoff. Your definition of rich must then fall lower and lower and lower and end up in schismatic round-robin internecine social warfare until the entire society self-destructs.

    At that point one can do whatever one wants such as rape, kill, maim, steal and face no opposition but someone with a better predatory ability because there won’t be any social order. We descend to chaos and barbarism, and the survival of the fittest.

    I am quite sure I am far more fit for that trial by combat than Dino and his fellow loons, and in fact know it beyond a shadow of a doubt. Are they as sure? People like to think that such degeneration happens far off after they pass and do not care what future generations face due to the society they’ve left them, but as we saw throughout the 20th century, societies can collapse practically overnight.

    You liberals are just not very good at this survival of the fittest and enlightened self-interest thing are you? The only thing keeping you alive is a peaceful ordered society. Your social warfare predilections are the sort of thing that destroy what protects you. I have no wish to see such a degeneracy in my own lifetime because of the hassle, and in those of my successors because I have conscience. You might wish to reexamine if you do or do not have a wish to see that come about and whether you’re truly able to survive that.

    I know I can. I guarantee you that you aren’t.

Create a SAB Readerblog


Recent Comments

Powered by Disqus

Blog Advice and Support
Installs and Upgrades
Theme Modifications
Custom Plugins
Theme Design
Conversions and Relocations
Hacked Site Recovery
Mobile Apps Development