Tax Reform Under Trump 2017


#2172

If we get rid of charitable deductions, rich people will donate less (unless they want their name on a building or look good) but will pay more taxes.

It will also makes those “we give a dollar for every x” more legit, instead of just another loop hole.


#2173

None of those organizations can do political advocacy. They teach gun safety and encourage people to vote, neither of which is objectionable.

You mean the organization that was shut down? That doesn’t prove anything, except that charities that don’t actually do charity are punished.


#2174

It’s all objectionable. All of it! None of it is good.

I am fanatically pro the removal of the second amendment.


#2175

Again, I think teaching gun safety is good. Why not?

And so is encouraging people to vote. Unless you think people should only be encouraged to vote when it’s to your political advantage, which I find fairly abhorrent.


#2176

It wasn’t sure down right away, though. It existed.


#2177

Fuck that shit. You don’t understand. Guns to me is abortions to the Catholic Church.


#2178

Basically, all charities are one step from being the Trump Foundation because it saves richer fuckers money.


#2179

Yes, and bad cops existed. Until they were fired. Does that mean we should eliminate all police?


#2180

I get it, you hate charities and rich people. You’re willing to sacrifice poor people if it will make rich people worse off. I’m not.


#2181

If they weren’t necessary, we would. But the Trump Foundation only existed because of the tax breaks.

So, get rid of the tax break, and no need to worry.

And why should you get a tax break for giving money to a charity to Israeli?


#2182

You have an odd view. People don’t stop giving if you get rid of the exemption. You can see that because poor people regular give more than their deduction.

The only groups that don’t are the rich. And if they did pay their taxes, we might not need so many charities.


#2183

Roughly half of all money going to charity comes from the top income quintile. One quarter comes from the dreaded top 1%.

You seem to think that those numbers wouldn’t change if the charitable deduction went away, but I see no evidence for that. People do things more when they are incentivized to do them.


#2184

I do think those numbers would change. And that’s fine, because it means more revenue from taxes.

It means more money in state and local coffee as well.

Basically, you are in favor of robbing the US government is in order to finance wealthy people’s ego trip.


#2185

After 30 years.

Call me crazy but successfully running a scam for 3 decades isn’t a success story for showing that the system works.

And rich people gave to charities before they got tax breaks. Mostly because the nation was about ready to start killing them, but still, the exemption didn’t start until 1917. Carnegie started in 1883 with no tax breaks at all. I’d say for the most part he gave a lot more than most rich fucks do these days.


#2186

I am in favor of helping people who need help. If giving someone $400 of federal funds means that $1000 gets sent to a homeless shelter, than I am in favor. Because that $1000 will likely do more good than whatever that $400 was going towards.

If billions get sent to help homeless people, but some rich jerk also makes money by running a scam, then I am still in favor. Because helping people is more important to me than seeing jerks suffer.

I think tax breaks are an incentive, and people do more of what they are incentivized to do.

But if you disagree, then there is no reason to limit ourselves to charity. We have tax rebates for education, day care, energy efficiency, etc. If we eliminate the charity deduction on the theory that the money would have been spent anyway, then we should also eliminate deductions for college savings, day care, solar panels etc.

We end up with a government that doesn’t care where you spend your money, which I think is a step backwards for progressives.


#2187

As I said, there is a difference, a lot of them, and the biggest is The Trump Foundation and others like it.

The second is being able to make deductions for charitable giving outside of the United States.

The third is that the other deductions were directly created by Congress to address a specific problem or issue, while Charities is just a broad tax give away to the weathy. Those other incentives can be changed or altered to fit the needs of the American People.

But hey, I guess you could be worried about big Solar, or Big Child Care.


#2188

That’s a fairly crappy argument. The existence of one bad tax incentive doesn’t invalidate the reasons for the good ones.

Charity is a crap tax incentive. It’s a band-aid for our consciences and also a handy way to divert money from the state to religious organization. The existence of charitable giving, at least in the sense of aid to the poor or underprivileged, should be something we are deeply ashamed of. It’s very visible evidence that we can’t be bothered to engineer a just society that cares for all its members.


#2189

So you admit this is just another tax break for the wealthy?

And energy efficiency benefits all. Subsidized day care as well. Somebody giving money to their church, or donating to a college or political organization I could care less about.


#2190

It lets religious people get a write off for believing in their religion. Shouldn’t that be illegal?


#2191

I mean it’s entirely possible, but it’s mostly a way to let rich people play with money to avoid taxes, often with the upside of being able to access the money they “donated” to the “charity” on top of it.

For every Gates Foundation there are 20+ Trump Foundations. As we’ve learned you can get away with illegal shit as long as no one ever bothers to pay attention. Burn it down imo, the people that want to do good will do it anyway.