Forced Charitable Contributions...

I have what I think is a very good idea.

Basically what if the government said to the taxpayer that some percentage of the income tax they pay ( say 1% for now ) must be given to a charity of their choice rather than the 1% going to the federal govt.

This way the taxpayer would get to choose the charity. I believe most people would then pick efficient charities that means something special to them. The choice of charity would be made private ( to prevent charities from using quid pro quo to force us to give to a particular charity ).

I think this would be an exteremly efficient way of spending tax dollars. The problem I think is many high income earners such as myself are very skeptical of paying higher taxes, not because we hate paying taxes, or are greedy, uncaring individuals, it is because we think the government wastes the tax dollars on lobbyists and that the govt is very inefficient at using the tax dollars.

What do you people think ? Are there any countries that use such a method currently ? How probable would it be to convince the politicians to put this idea into play ?

Thank You.

Reply to
steviekm3
Loading thread data ...

You already can designate $3 to the presidential election fund so you can be called more often by Robocallers.

Actually, for those who itemize, up to 50% of AGI can be deducted as charitable gifts. And every few years someone tries to add an above the line charitable gift deduction, but that hasn't passed. That's sort of similar to your suggestion.

Reply to
Arthur Kamlet

It's no longer a contribution but a tax.

Reply to
D. Stussy

...

While true, there's nothing that would prevent tax law being changed to make 1% directed to qualified organization and qualify as the "charitable" deduction.

Of course the chance of such an idea passing is less than that of the proverbial snowball.

Reply to
dpb

The difference is that his suggestion would effectively turn this portion of the charitable contribution into a tax credit, rather than a deduction.

But how would the government finance this? The feds still need the same amount of revenue to run the country, so they'd have to increase taxes somewhere else to make up for the fact that 1% of income tax is going to private charities rather than the government.

Reply to
Barry Margolin

They no doubt would. Most of these charities don't perform essential government services, so the government would be left with less money to provide those services it should. Thus taxes would go up.

IMO the government already does more than it should toward subsidizing charities with the Schedule A deduction.

Reply to
Phil Marti

A very astute observation.

Dick

Reply to
Dick Adams

Upon reading the subject header, my inclination was that this post was about the within-company hostile environment to pressure employees to contribute to local mega-charity funds.

I do not see any reason for anyone other than charities being in favor of your idea as it would mean the government channeling its own funds to charities which are already tax-exempt as well as increasing the opportunity for tax fraud.

Dick

Reply to
Dick Adams

I like the idea, but given that the government would prefer you not make any charitable contributions and that they take over many of the functions traditionally served by charities, good luck getting it introduced, let alone passed.

Why don't you start small, and get the limitation on deduction for charitable contributions eliminated?

Reply to
Gil Faver

perhaps they could stop doing some things, and return those things to the charitable sector from whence they came.

Reply to
Gil Faver

Around nineteen percent of federal government outlays currently go to charity already. See "social programs" on page 86 of

formatting link
With the OP's plan, it would be easy to argue for cutting a point from spending on these "social programs" and let taxpayers contribute that 1% as the OP describes. Without all the charitable giving already in place, arguably the federal expenditures for "social programs" would have to rise.

Reply to
Elle

I am in favor of this idea. I believe much of the work the government is now doing has been historically done by charities, and should be done by charities. They are more efficient, and we can each vote which charities are worthy. A few years ago, there was a scandal with United Way (local, I think) and their donations dried up. Boy, did they clean up their act. Haven't seen that happen with government, as people cannot vote with their wallets.

As a further tie in to your comment, United Way was my first (and only) experience with attempted forced charitable giving in the workplace. Ha, didn't work on me, even after the intimidating chat with my new boss (I was just out of school). He wasn't much of a debater, and it was clear he was just playing corporate politics. I was particularly happy to see United Way having its problems.

And, don't even get me started on United Way and the Boy Scouts . . .

========================================= MODERATOR'S COMMENT: Let's keep focused on Taxes.

Reply to
Gil Faver

Do you mean that in addition to the tax an additional 1% should be set aside for charities, or that the federal tax be reduced by 1% and the spending of the amount decided by voters.

California does have this. You can in your California tax return elect to donate money to certain charities. I'm guessing only a few of the donations come from this route because the list is limited.

Also be aware that many 501(c)(3) charities are located in the US, but actually do all their work abroad. So the fact we can divert tax money abroad might be an issue. I'm OK with it because a lot of my dividends and capital gains come from foreign countries, so I should give back to these countries.

Reply to
removeps-groups

BeanSmart website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.