Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Obama Targeting Charitable Deductions
STEVELACKNER.COM ^ | March 25, 2009 | Steven W. Lackner

Posted on 03/25/2009 5:49:27 PM PDT by stevelackner

President Obama has proposed decreasing the charitable tax deduction for wealthy taxpayers. The USA Today reports that "Obama's proposed 2010 federal budget contains a 7% cut in charitable tax deductions for the nation's wealthiest taxpayers... Americans whose household income exceeds $250,000 a year...can currently save $350 in taxes for every $1,000 donated to charity; under Obama's plan, that amount would drop to $280 per $1,000 donation." Speaking at a news conference Tuesday evening, Obama said "there's very little evidence that this has a significant impact on charitable giving." He went on to say that "if it's really a charitable contribution, I'm assuming that that shouldn't be the determining factor as to whether you're giving that $100 to the homeless shelter down the street."

"By doing this, you raise the cost of giving" said Roberton Williams, a senior fellow at The Tax Policy Center, a liberal Washington think tank. Williams' estimates directly contradict those of Obama who says there will be no significant impact on charitable giving. The USA Today reports that "by Williams' calculations the change will result in a 10% drop in charitable giving by wealthy Americans, who typically contribute about 20% of all charitable dollars. In real dollars, Williams projects a decline of about $6 billion in charitable donations because of the change."

It seems especially relevant to examine Barack Obama's own charitable giving as he lectures Americans about what the "determining factor" in giving charity should be and as he prepares to cut charitable deductions. Obama's own charitable giving reveals that Obama has no moral authority to stand behind his podium and lecture other Americans about charitable giving. Professor Arthur C. Brooks, the Louis A. Bantle Professor at the Syracuse University's Maxwell School and a visiting scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, has written about the charitable giving of Barack Obama. Professor Brooks notes that "between 2000 and 2004" the Obamas "gave less than one percent of their income to charity, far lower than the national average. Their giving rose to a laudable five percent in 2005 and six percent in 2006, with the explosion of their annual income to near $1 million, and the advent of Mr. Obama’s national political aspirations (representing a rare case in which political ambition apparently led to social benefit). According to an Obama spokesman, the couple’s miserly charity until 2005 'was as generous as they could be at the time,' given their personal expenses. In other words, despite an annual average income over the period of about $244,000, they simply could not afford to give anything meaningful.... The Obamas got rich in 2005. Their income increased sevenfold from 2004 to 2005, mostly because of Mr. Obama’s book royalties, and stayed very high in 2006 for the same reason. In 2005, another wealthy political couple with significant book royalties was Mr. and Mrs. Cheney, who had a combined income of $8.8 million, largely due to Mrs. Cheney’s books and the couple’s investment income. Just how much did the Cheneys give to charity from their bonanza? A measly 78 percent of their income, or $6.9 million. (No, that is not a misprint.)"


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS:

1 posted on 03/25/2009 5:49:27 PM PDT by stevelackner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: stevelackner

He’s taxing formerly non taxable foundations, organizations, etc. They are talking about taxing CO2, the air we breathe. It’s not that much of a leap to heart monitors. They can tax us per beat.


2 posted on 03/25/2009 5:52:37 PM PDT by allmost
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: stevelackner
Doesn't make sense.

Charity is a good thing.

Big government is an anathema.

3 posted on 03/25/2009 5:52:48 PM PDT by BenLurkin (And oh, Hey!, I've been travelin' on this road too long)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: stevelackner

The “messiah” needs everyone to be dependent on his government. Charities too! He doesn’t want to be a one term president.


4 posted on 03/25/2009 5:54:01 PM PDT by FlingWingFlyer (Mom always said, "Never just anyone whose name can't be spelled backwards." Like Soros.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: stevelackner

I wonder how long before he taxes Chruches?


5 posted on 03/25/2009 5:56:16 PM PDT by JamesA (He who hesitates is lost.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FlingWingFlyer

I hope he’s not a one-YEAR president.


6 posted on 03/25/2009 5:56:27 PM PDT by boknows
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin
Libs and Statists despise private charity. They believe this is exclusively a province of government. Its also why they give so little of their own money.
7 posted on 03/25/2009 5:56:34 PM PDT by Eric in the Ozarks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: stevelackner

The ones that will suffer will be the Opera, Museums, and high falutin” “charities”. Good people will still give to their Churches.


8 posted on 03/25/2009 5:57:07 PM PDT by Ann Archy (Abortion....the Human Sacrifice to the god of Convenience.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JamesA
I wonder how long before he taxes Chruches?

This is a tax on 'charity'. It affects Churches. The government just takes their chunk in the donation phase. Technically not from the Church.
9 posted on 03/25/2009 6:01:30 PM PDT by allmost
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: stevelackner

The Obamoron continues to prove on the world stage that he is a clueless idiot.

Meanwhile, the rest of the world is enjoying laughing at us squirm under the glare of lights that have focused on Washington ever since the circus came to town.

Question is, will they still be laughing the next time they need our help and there is no money and no resources to help out??


10 posted on 03/25/2009 6:03:26 PM PDT by DustyMoment (FloriDUH - proud inventors of pregnant/hanging chads and judicide!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: stevelackner
More smoke and mirrors. While everyone..press..politicians...blogs...etc. wrings their hands and spends hundreds of hours on the “charitable” deduction, they will ram through a budget with every democratic/socialist dream in place. After it's over Obama will look into the camera and say I made a mistake. His fan club will forgive him and we'll be stuck with the mess.
11 posted on 03/25/2009 6:05:13 PM PDT by 101viking
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: stevelackner
This is so that the government can provide the money to the Charitable organizations so they can tell them what to do with the money.

No money to a organization that supports life or that supports the Bible or that supports freedom of the individual.

12 posted on 03/25/2009 6:06:41 PM PDT by YOUGOTIT (I will always be a Soldier)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: stevelackner

The Presidential ‘Prompter A-Hole Spaeketh!


13 posted on 03/25/2009 6:16:20 PM PDT by seanrobins (blog.seanrobins.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: stevelackner
"if it's really a charitable contribution, I'm assuming that that shouldn't be the determining factor as to whether you're giving that $100 to the homeless shelter down the street."

WRONG!

Real charity is when you give till it hurts...not when you just give what you can comfortably spare.

Now maybe for some that $100 bucks really cuts into their budget...that is exactly the one who he is hurting with these changes!

14 posted on 03/25/2009 6:17:23 PM PDT by AndyTheBear
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AndyTheBear

Obama could send an extra hundred to his brother who lives in a tin hut....


15 posted on 03/25/2009 6:26:13 PM PDT by JoanneSD (illegals represented without taxation.. Americans taxed without representation)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Ann Archy

“Good people will still give to their Churches.”

nope, you think Obama and his liberal friends want the churches to survive when everything else is going under? They hate religion first and foremost.

and btw I don’t see what is so liberal about operas. Opera singers actually care about classical skill and quality, unlike most of the pop junk we hear all the time.


16 posted on 03/25/2009 6:41:23 PM PDT by ari-freedom ( Hail to the Dork!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Eric in the Ozarks

I heard on the radio today that the Obama’s gave less than 1% of their income to charity last year. Less than 1%. Not sure if it is accurate information, of course, but if it is true, it’s quite revealing.


17 posted on 03/25/2009 7:24:32 PM PDT by khnyny ("The demagogue is one who preaches doctrines he knows to be untrue to men he knows to be idiots.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Eric in the Ozarks
"Libs and Statists despise private charity. They believe this is exclusively a province of government. Its also why they give so little of their own money."

You have this precisely correct. It's one of the ways in which leftwing thinking is totally at odds with traditional civic beliefs in the U.S. and somewhat similar previous, traditional civic beliefs in the Western world, generally. Leftists take every good thing and turn it on its head. They hate virtue because every vitue must come from government and be dangled in front of a helpless and resentful populace to gain compliance. Reading posts to leftwing internet sites is absolutely stunning for those who can stand it. There truly are a lot of really dangerously deluded people in this country today, a product of our wonderful educational system (both public and private/exclusive). "Woe to them who call evil good and good evil."

18 posted on 03/25/2009 8:48:57 PM PDT by Irene Adler (Is it possible to be a socially conservative anarchist?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: stevelackner
Obama says that "I shouldn't get a $38 dollar tax deduction if I donate $100, while someone with a $50,000 income only gets a $28 deduction, for the same $100...

OK, I agree: It's just not fair. Given that logic, if someone who makes $10,000,000 is taxed at nearly 40%, while someone who makes $50,000 is taxed at 28%, well, that's just not fair either. The $10,000,000 earner is being treated unfairly, by Obama's own logic.

There can only be ONE real reason for this. Because leftists hate the idea that Charities operate outside of government control. They want to hurt, and if possible, put independent charities out of business.

Mark

19 posted on 03/25/2009 8:50:25 PM PDT by MarkL (Do I really look like a guy with a plan?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ari-freedom
"...you think Obama and his liberal friends want the churches to survive when everything else is going under? They hate religion first and foremost."

This is also correct. Christianity is in for some increasingly rough treatment in this country. Be ready.

20 posted on 03/25/2009 8:51:49 PM PDT by Irene Adler (Is it possible to be a socially conservative anarchist?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Eric in the Ozarks

Completely agree Eric in the Ozarks.


21 posted on 03/25/2009 9:11:26 PM PDT by DirtyDawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: khnyny
Remember the flap when it was reported the Clintons and then the Gores gave chump change...
22 posted on 03/26/2009 5:56:03 AM PDT by Eric in the Ozarks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Irene Adler

That is also why they can’t stand tipping for good service. We have had dinner with a particularly Lib couple from Des Moines and I’ve watched his wife go green when I put a couple of $5s on the table.


23 posted on 03/26/2009 5:59:01 AM PDT by Eric in the Ozarks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson