Say Anything Blog

Yea I cant agree here.

Let’s not look at one of the valid deducations to make a case against the complexity of the tax code.

It’s all political bullshit. Liberals (and Robert108) lie and spin and twist and obscure and distract and cheat to protect their guys and hurt the opposing team. It’s like wrestling. They distract the ref while their team mate hits you with a chair. There’s no rule they won’t break, no law they won’t skirt, no crime they won’t forgive as long as they can win.

I agree that the present tax code is essentially behavior modification via taxation, and I think one of the worst effects is the loss of freedom of political speech for charitable organizations.  I do wonder how many jobs would be lost if a flat tax were implemented - not only IRS, but in the private sector.  In my opinion, that is one economic pain worth enduring. I’m entirely in favor of a flat tax (for all the good that will do).

Tax breaks for charity are the government’s way of admitting private charity helps the poor better that forced governmentr charity.

It seems to me that the biggest problem is just the spending. 

If the government spent only money on what it really needed to do then the resulting taxes wouldn’t require us to jump through all of the hoops to keep our money.

1% of Americans pay 40% of the income tax.
5% of Americans pay 60% of the income tax.
10% of Americans pay 70% of the income tax.

Charity is such a quaint idea that was fashionable before government got into it and took it over.

No Free Lunch

I do wonder how many jobs would be lost if a flat tax were implemented - not only IRS, but in the private sector.

Well, if you think about the amount of money we’d save both in the cost of administering the current system on the government side and complying with it on the taxpayer side, there’s going to be a lot more capital flowing around.  And that means more jobs, not fewer.

Spreading out the tax base isn’t going to raise taxes on Americans who create the jobs.

The purpose of government shouldn’t be to do good, but simply to refrain from doing evil.

Good ole Dorganoff.

Check out:
Goon’s North Dakota Red Neck
Goon’s World

Typical pomposity from someone who’s spent most of his adult life living off of the taxes of others, and he always will!

No Free Lunch

t seems to me that the biggest problem is just the spending.

If the government spent only money on what it really needed to do then the resulting taxes wouldn’t require us to jump through all of the hoops to keep our money.

Whistler, than would make to much sense and we should now write on the calendar, today I have just agreed with you.

I give to a christian school a portion of our tithing.  If we and others like us did not do this, this school, K-8, would have to close their doors. We could not do this if it was not tax deductible in our present tax code.

Rob, I see what you were getting at and you confused my small mind for sometime until I thought about it for a while.

Gustave776

One idea behind giving is to give an incentive to give, some people would not give at all if it were not tax deductible. I understand that the tax code is so massive no one person can understand all of it out it takes a group to figure it out and it should be changed, the charitable deductions could remain in place by a simple check off on the form . I am for a fair tax for all I never felt like the people that made a million should give over half of it to the government. Although there should be in place for the low wage earners a cut off of what is taxed and what is not , sometimes the only way someone who makes a paltry sum can survive is paying no taxes,I would not want some one who was on the brink to pay any taxes . the ones who are successful should not be penalized for making a lot of money .  I think at one time people in the upper bracket were paying 90% rate that is criminal .

“some days it is not worth the effort to chew through the restraints”

Well it seems to me that the only progressivity that would be fair in the tax code would be an exclusion of income up to the poverty limit for everyone.

1% of Americans pay 40% of the income tax.
5% of Americans pay 60% of the income tax.
10% of Americans pay 70% of the income tax.

Imposing order of the US Tax code is a weak argument for for killing off the tax deduction for charitable giving. I don’t have good numbers, but I suspect a significantly bigger waste of missed tax revenue is scurilous business expenses above reasonable costs (lunch expenses greater that $50 per person, (travel by private corporate jet versus commercial coach class, business team-building retreats, etc.)

Another, better reason for leaving the deductions alone is that while killing off the tax deduction for charitable giving to churches and synagogues, the budgets and the positive affects of some civic and society charity-oriented organizations will be decimated.

I’m a Buddhist and we take responsibility for feeding the monks for one day a week. We also buy the flowers for the altar every week and for major celebrations. It’s a 50 mile round trip from our house to the temple.

We have been doing it for years and I never even considered taking a deduction. But last year I decided to keep track and it amounted to over $9000 with mileage.

But if they tood away the deduction it wouldn’t make any difference.

Andy, I’d only support killing off deductions for charitable giving if it was part of an overall simplification of the tax code.  Something along the lines of ending all deductions for everything, and then passing the additional revenue (and savings in administration) on to the taxpayers.

That, I think, would result in a lot more available funds for charities.

The purpose of government shouldn’t be to do good, but simply to refrain from doing evil.

I tend to agree with you, Rob; although my charitable giving averages about 10x that (percentage-wise) of most liberals, I’d be willing to give up the deduction if only the government would come back to the position that they had no business taxing the income that a man required to live.  Mona Charen noted a few years back that the deduction per dependent back in the 1950s would be worth somewhere between five and ten thousand dollars today.  Fix that, I don’t need to deduct my tithes.