• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Tax credit for charitable donations?

Tax credit for charitable donations?


  • Total voters
    11
I'm not following your logic...You're saying that wealth redistribution is overwhelming the budget, but there is no hope at ever changing that and therefore this is a bad idea? :confused:

Every entitlement program is redistribution of wealth! What do you think is overwhelming our budget? Tse-tse Fly research?

The government wouldn't get to decide where the money went. Each individual could give to a charity (or multiple charities) of his/her choice, and just write it off their taxes. It couldn't be a political football if the government had no control over it.

It's a political football as long as the "good auspices of Congress" are required to keep the tax credit on the books. The government can have as much or as little control over it as they choose. Millions to ACORN. Nooooo, thank you.
 
Every entitlement program is redistribution of wealth! What do you think is overwhelming our budget? Tse-tse Fly research?

People being compelled to give to charities of their choice would reduce the need for entitlement programs. Your logic doesn't make any sense. You're complaining about entitlement programs, so I'm proposing a solution that would reduce the need for them, and you're rejecting it by saying that there is no hope and entitlement programs will continue to be bloated. I mean...if you view entitlement programs as a problem, then it would stand to reason that you'd want to solve that problem rather than talking about how we're all doomed and rejecting any efforts to solve it. :confused:

MaggieD said:
It's a political football as long as the "good auspices of Congress" are required to keep the tax credit on the books. The government can have as much or as little control over it as they choose.

Again, you're rejecting a solution just because Congress could change it in the future. What's the point of making any reforms at all to any government policy, then? Congress could just change it later.

MaggieD said:
Millions to ACORN. Nooooo, thank you.

I think it's far more likely that congressmen will vote to fund charities that benefit them personally or politically, rather than people choosing of their own volition to donate to such organizations. If a lot of people actually think that ACORN is doing a good job providing for the poor, then I would have no problem at all with them receiving millions of dollars in charitable donations.
 
Last edited:
This idea would be better if the charity actually had to help people and not be some political organization or the local country club flower committee.
 
People being compelled to give to charities of their choice would reduce the need for entitlement programs. Your logic doesn't make any sense. You're complaining about entitlement programs, so I'm proposing a solution that would reduce the need for them, and you're rejecting it by saying that there is no hope and entitlement programs will continue to be bloated. I mean...if you view entitlement programs as a problem, then it would stand to reason that you'd want to solve that problem rather than talking about how we're all doomed and rejecting any efforts to solve it. :confused:

And now you say they'd be compelled?? Why would it reduce the need for entitlement programs? Suddenly Public Aid is going to become a charitable organization? SS Disability? SS itself? Veterans Disability? Giving people tax credits to offset their personal donations to charity isn't going to do anything except raise our taxes in other areas, give quasi-charitable organizations and their adherents a way to fund their questionable activities with the blessing of the U.S. Government, and get our taxes raised in other areas instead. I could actually see a real problem for Homeland Security in "following the money."

Again, you're rejecting a solution just because Congress could change it in the future. What's the point of making any reforms at all to any government policy, then? Congress could just change it later.

I reject it for many more reasons than Congress being able to change the tax credit in the future.

I think it's far more likely that congressmen will vote to fund charities that benefit them personally or politically, rather than people choosing of their own volition to donate to such organizations. If a lot of people actually think that ACORN is doing a good job providing for the poor, then I would have no problem at all with them receiving millions of dollars in charitable donations.

You don't get it. I don't think Congressmen should be able to fund any charities at all. And, while we're about it, the requirements for a 501(3)(c) are such that there's not much limitation at ALL on what amounts need to be used for actual "charity."
 
And now you say they'd be compelled??

Do you understand what I'm proposing here? I'm suggesting that giving people a tax credit for charitable donations would cause most people to give as much of their tax burden as possible to charity, thus essentially having compulsory charity instead of compulsory taxes for social programs.

MaggieD said:
Why would it reduce the need for entitlement programs? Suddenly Public Aid is going to become a charitable organization? SS Disability? SS itself? Veterans Disability?

If there were suddenly a lot of private charities receiving huge amounts of donations to cover these types of things, it would stand to reason that the federal government would not need to pay for as many of them itself.

MaggieD said:
Giving people tax credits to offset their personal donations to charity isn't going to do anything except raise our taxes in other areas, give quasi-charitable organizations and their adherents a way to fund their questionable activities with the blessing of the U.S. Government, and get our taxes raised in other areas instead.

Why would it raise our taxes in other areas if the need for government-funded entitlement programs was reduced? Politicians are not exactly fond of raising taxes just for kicks...

MaggieD said:
I could actually see a real problem for Homeland Security in "following the money."

I agree; I think that, if anything, it would need to be limited to traditional social programs, rather than public services like Homeland Security. I would agree that those would still need to be paid for with taxes.

MaggieD said:
I reject it for many more reasons than Congress being able to change the tax credit in the future.

Well then let's talk about those. Maybe I'll at least be able to understand your argument for some of those other reasons.

MaggieD said:
You don't get it. I don't think Congressmen should be able to fund any charities at all. And, while we're about it, the requirements for a 501(3)(c) are such that there's not much limitation at ALL on what amounts need to be used for actual "charity."

I really have no idea what you're talking about, since the idea I suggested was about individuals funding the charities THEY wanted to fund.
 
Last edited:
Do you understand what I'm proposing here? I'm suggesting that giving people a tax credit for charitable donations would cause most people to give as much of their tax burden as possible to charity, thus essentially having compulsory charity instead of compulsory taxes for social programs.

Kandahar, I respect your opinion, honest I do. I just don't agree with it. Compulsory charity sounds ridiculous to me, no offense.

Why would it raise our taxes in other areas if the need for government-funded entitlement programs was reduced? Politicians are not exactly fond of raising taxes just for kicks...

Maybe I don't understand what you're trying to say...I'm beginning to wonder.

I agree; I think that, if anything, it would need to be limited to traditional social programs, rather than public services like Homeland Security. I would agree that those would still need to be paid for with taxes.

We are most certainly talking past each other, my friend. I'm not talking about turning Homeland Security into some kind of 501C3 that can accept charitable contributions, I'm talking about The Church of the Radical Day Islams setting up a 501C3 that allowed charitable funding into it....so that, with your plan, we'd be funding the terrorists who are making war against us.

I really have no idea what you're talking about, since the idea I suggested was about individuals funding the charities THEY wanted to fund.

You said: "I think it's far more likely that congressmen will vote to fund charities that benefit them personally or politically, rather than people choosing of their own volition to donate to such organizations." What would Congressmen be voting for with your plan?

Kandahar, this is a subject I can't really raise much passion about since I think it's so far-fetched. Respectfully, I think I'm going to step away from it as I think I've said about all I've got on the subject.
 
Back
Top Bottom