tax deducton for charities

[burt23]

what will be the effect on this administration taking away the tax deduction for charities?

[LeroyBrown]

what will be the effect on this administration taking away the tax deduction for charities?

Those that give for loophole's sake with find another. Those that give for the sake of giving will still give.

God's work is not dependent on the tax code. It will be done.

[ralittlefield]

Those that give for loophole's sake with find another. Those that give for the sake of giving will still give.

God's work is not dependent on the tax code. It will be done.

While I believe that, in the end, God's plan will not fail, I feel that ending the tax deduction for charitable giving will have a negative effect on the income of many organizations, including churches.

[Lie Sniper]

what will be the effect on this administration taking away the tax deduction for charities?

IMO, overall giving will decrease, overall need for charitable giving will increase and along with it growing dependence on the government.
Which is the administrations plan. Then government to the rescue.

[smyrna]

what will be the effect on this administration taking away the tax deduction for charities?

Isn't that what our taxes have become...a charitable contribution?

[Meriweather]

Those that give for loophole's sake with find another. Those that give for the sake of giving will still give.

God's work is not dependent on the tax code. It will be done.

I agree. In one way, it may even be a sigh of relief. Each year I get a notice for tax purposes from the church stating how much I've given. It always makes me feel a little uncomfortable as my left hand is not supposed to be taking note of what my right hand is doing.

[DRS]

There have been changes to the law since 2005

http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id=164997,00.html

I never declare my donations anyways, the government aknowledging the helping of others means nothing in the grand scheme it is God who rewards the good deed

[countmein]

You know, you can turn everything into a positive if you look hard enough. I think a lot of churches claim tax-exempt status so their people can claim their giving as a donation on their taxes. IF you can no longer claim those givings as a donation on your taxes, then I think it would be a good idea for the church to drop their tax exemption status and start getting deeply involved in the political process and not hold anything back. This could come back to bite some politicians in the back side.

[Wake-Up]

what will be the effect on this administration taking away the tax deduction for charities?

I did not think it was being eliminated but the total amount you can deduct will be reduced over a certain income level.

Can anyone verify?

Big difference between eliminating and reducing the deduction.

I believe LB is right. Those that give purely as a deduction will find another loophole, those that give because they want to, still will.

Remember its not a tax credit but a deduction. We donate a fair amount and it has little affect on my total tax liability.

[ROBERTENEAL]

There was a year during the Reagan administration when charitable contributions counted as a deduction on the short 1040 form; you did not have to itemize in order to get the deduction, AND you still got the standard deduction.

Reagan had a Democrat majority Congress, so this great idea that was designed to eventually take the public assistance burden away from government and place it on churches, charitable organizations, and the private sector in general, only lasted one year (1984, I think).

A true Republican form of limited government (not to be confused with the monstrosity mess that the U.S. government has evolved into) only works in an environment where people are, for the most part , able to govern themselves. Government should only do those things that citizens are not equipped to do for themselves. A country that is made up of helpless and irresponsible citizens is a country that will ultimately be governed by an elitist oligarchy (look at the trend that exists in the U.S. now).

People are supposed to take care of other people by means of personal efforts and private institutions, not by placing the welfare burden on government institutions.

John Adams said that our constitution was designed only for the governing of a moral and religious people, and that it was inadequate for the governing of any other.

Part of the meaning of "separation of church and state" (a metaphor that has been used to clarify the meaning of the first amendment's establishment of religion clause) has to do with keeping the government from encroaching on the church responsibilities. It is the church's responsibility to care for the less fortunate, not the government's responsibility.

And don't forget that the reason why government wants to shoulder the welfare burden is because many of our elected officials are control freaks, compassion has little or nothing to do with it.

Remember the 1960s, when LBJ declared war on poverty? Poverty won.

The only time prosperity wins is when people fulfill their responsibilities as citizens, thus allowing for limited government that only does that which it is constitutionally obligated to do.

[Lie Sniper]

There was a year during the Reagan administration when charitable contributions counted as a deduction on the short 1040 form; you did not have to itemize in order to get the deduction, AND you still got the standard deduction.

Reagan had a Democrat majority Congress, so this great idea that was designed to eventually take the public assistance burden away from government and place it on churches, charitable organizations, and the private sector in general, only lasted one year (1984, I think).

A true Republican form of limited government (not to be confused with the monstrosity mess that the U.S. government has evolved into) only works in an environment where people are, for the most part , able to govern themselves. Government should only do those things that citizens are not equipped to do for themselves. A country that is made up of helpless and irresponsible citizens is a country that will ultimately be governed by an elitist oligarchy (look at the trend that exists in the U.S. now).

People are supposed to take care of other people by means of personal efforts and private institutions, not by placing the welfare burden on government institutions.

John Adams said that our constitution was designed only for the governing of a moral and religious people, and that it was inadequate for the governing of any other.

Part of the meaning of "separation of church and state" (a metaphor that has been used to clarify the meaning of the first amendment's establishment of religion clause) has to do with keeping the government from encroaching on the church responsibilities. It is the church's responsibility to care for the less fortunate, not the government's responsibility.

And don't forget that the reason why government wants to shoulder the welfare burden is because many of our elected officials are control freaks, compassion has little or nothing to do with it.

Remember the 1960s, when LBJ declared war on poverty? Poverty won.

The only time prosperity wins is when people fulfill their responsibilities as citizens, thus allowing for limited government that only does that which it is constitutionally obligated to do.

+1:clap:

[CMike11]

The effect will be less money on charities and more dependence on the government.

Stupid policy.

[Koushi Shinigami]

The effect will be less money on charities and more dependence on the government.

Stupid policy.

Not so stupid if you want to make more people dependant on the gov't for their survival.

[Talk2Bill]

Those that give for loophole's sake with find another. Those that give for the sake of giving will still give.

God's work is not dependent on the tax code. It will be done.

for loop holes sake? you know that it always cost the giver more to give to a charity than to just pay the taxes....right?

[Koushi Shinigami]

There have been changes to the law since 2005

http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id=164997,00.html

I never declare my donations anyways, the government aknowledging the helping of others means nothing in the grand scheme it is God who rewards the good deed

Run your taxes without adding in the charitible deductions. Run them again while figuring in the deductions. If you get more back from your tax contribution for claiming the charitable deductions, you could be donating that extra money back from taxes as well.

[CMike11]

Not so stupid if you want to make more people dependant on the gov't for their survival.

Very true.

[smyrna]

You know, you can turn everything into a positive if you look hard enough. I think a lot of churches claim tax-exempt status so their people can claim their giving as a donation on their taxes. IF you can no longer claim those givings as a donation on your taxes, then I think it would be a good idea for the church to drop their tax exemption status and start getting deeply involved in the political process and not hold anything back. This could come back to bite some politicians in the back side.

Good point.

[Chucky]

...

Part of the meaning of "separation of church and state" (a metaphor that has been used to clarify the meaning of the first amendment's establishment of religion clause) has to do with keeping the government from encroaching on the church responsibilities. It is the church's responsibility to care for the less fortunate, not the government's responsibility.

....
Great post - and I'd add this to the point above: one big reason the government has grown into its "responsibility" role is that the Church has failed to fulfill its role.

That is, as church became (and continues to be) more of a comfortable self-interested social club, it abdicated its place in society to government.

In fact, religious folks in government began the (basically illegal, per the Constitution) use of public funds for charitable purposes. It seemed altruistic, but has grown into the monster that the founding fathers intended to avoid.

[optrader]

Fortunately, Obama is going to turn us into such a socialist paradise in 4 years that we won't need charity any way. Holy Cow, just look how well that's worked in Europe!

[countmein]

Great post - and I'd add this to the point above: one big reason the government has grown into its "responsibility" role is that the Church has failed to fulfill its role.

That is, as church became (and continues to be) more of a comfortable self-interested social club, it abdicated its place in society to government.

In fact, religious folks in government began the (basically illegal, per the Constitution) use of public funds for charitable purposes. It seemed altruistic, but has grown into the monster that the founding fathers intended to avoid.

Sadly, I agree with you Chucky. When I look at the church's financial statement where my hubby attends, it makes me shake my head in disbelief. They are in debt up to their eyeballs for a PARKING LOT and are trying to go deeper into debt for a playground, yet their giving to local charities is pathetic. I want to see a church in this area where the members are active in helping the communtiy. Open a childcare center for single moms. There are plenty of retired people who could give a couple hours a week to volunteer. Job training. There are people who maintain the church....why aren't they teaching others how to do the same so they can get a job somewhere? Bookkeeping and secretary, same thing. I have gone to this particular church on a couple of occations to speak with the pastor. He is always too busy preparing his sermon to bother speaking with people. Now what if I was there contemplating suicide? It is more important to prepare a sermon than to minister to someone in need? If the sermon is a word from God, you shouldn't need hours and hours of preperation.
Maybe other churches are not like the ones that I have had to deal with. And please don't get me wrong, I am a Bible believing, received Christ as my Savior Christian. I hope to one day find a place to call home, a place that is a body of Christ that is doing His work helping people instead of being concerned about how grand the building is. One that donates at least 20% of their offerings to help people in the community that are in need. One that does not have a tax-exempt statues so they are free to say what they want without fear. Unitl then, I will continue to study at home and fellowship with friends and family when the Lord brings us and the opportunity together.