The Joplin Globe, Joplin, MO

Opinion

December 21, 2012

Marta Mossburg, columnist: Capping deductions will hurt charities

— This Christmas season everyone should be up in arms that the president and Congress may cap charitable deductions.

Charities are very concerned and sent 250 representatives to Washington earlier this month to talk members of Congress out of one of the worst ideas to help avert the fiscal cliff.

Giving is not a loophole like accelerated depreciation of corporate jets. For starters, the ability to deduct gifts to charity has been around for almost 100 years. The fact that it was included in the tax code just a few years after the federal income tax was established points to the fact that it was a respected American practice and not added so that friends of those in power could escape government obligations like in this lobbyist-fueled government era.

As Alison Hawkins, director of external affairs at The Philanthropy Roundtable said, “Taking $10 that I could have spent on myself and instead giving it to the community … is a very expensive tax loophole.” Sure, there is some tax benefit to that, but it would have been a lot better financially for a person to keep his or her money and pay taxes on it.

Besides, it is a terrible idea to discourage Americans from giving back to the community at a time when government of all types is increasingly replacing the work civil organizations used to provide and when so many need a job and are struggling.

And a cap means that charities that depend on government for their existence will have more of an edge fundraising if private giving goes down as a result of tax changes.

But it’s revealing that we have reached a point in our culture where a deduction for giving to charity is considered a “loophole” just like accounting that can allow oil companies, for example, to buy crude at a range of prices but pay taxes on their profits from selling it as if every barrel was bought at the latest, most expensive price.

The president, who has tried to cap deductions with practically every bill he has submitted, and a willing media are chief proponents of branding giving as a vehicle for the rich to avoid paying their fair share. But that label is patently unfair. Studies show middle-class Americans donate a larger percentage of their income than the wealthy, with religious faith being a significant driver of a lot of giving.

And interestingly, liberals give less than conservatives, so any changes would disproportionately impact those who voted for the other guy in the last election.

Some charities, perhaps unwittingly, have done their part to remake themselves as just another special interest in the eyes of the media by employing high-priced lobbyists. That smells on the face of it and many donors won’t give to those groups because of it.

But it is like faulting charities for the fact that the government is huge and complex. They should have the right to navigate it, too, like everyone else. Besides, the vast majority do not have the money or resources to petition Washington just like small businesses, which need every employee focused on making money to survive.

Ultimately, it would be best to get rid of all deductions, simplify the tax code and broaden the tax base. That would benefit charities and everyone who cannot afford to pay lobbyists to manipulate the tax code in their favor. Data from Giving USA buttresses that viewpoint. It shows that donations have hovered around 2 percent of disposable income for decades under different tax regimes, signifying that expanding the pie is the best solution to increasing donations.

But that does not mean in the interim that Congress should treat the broad swath of Americans who give as if they were serial tax avoiders like General Electric. It’s a dangerous moral equivalency that undermines civil society and makes government a bigger arbiter in deciding Americans’ priorities.

Marta H. Mossburg writes frequently about national affairs and about politics in Maryland, where she lives. Read her at www.martamossburg.com.

 

 

1
Text Only
Opinion
  • Our View.jpg Our View: No need for No. 9

    “Shall the Missouri Constitution be amended so that the people shall be secure in their electronic communications and data from unreasonable searches and seizures as they are now likewise secure in their persons, homes, papers and effects?”

    July 29, 2014 1 Photo

  • Your View: ‘Right to Farm’ is wrong

    On Aug. 5, voters will be asked to make a decision about Amendment 1.

    July 29, 2014

  • Your View: No on Amendment 7

    The Missouri Department of Transportation is wanting more money through a three-quarter-cent addition to the sales tax. Consider one example of how it spends your money.

    July 29, 2014

  • Your View: Bad way to get revenue

    I received two fliers through the mail today asking me to vote “yes” on Amendment 7, which would add a three-quarter-cent tax to Missouri’s sales tax to help maintain roads and bridges.

    July 29, 2014

  • Other Views Other Views: Symptom of bad policy

    The Obama administration continues to be surprised and shocked when its policies of good intentions suddenly meet the hard reality of unintended consequences.

    July 28, 2014 1 Photo

  • Rebecca French Smith, guest columnist: Amendment 1: Farmers are 'boots on the ground'

    Take a moment and ask yourself who was the last person in your family to farm.

    July 28, 2014

  • Your View; Makes no sense

    Chess was never my game. It’s too complicated.

    July 28, 2014

  • Your View: Time value of money

     I was shaking my head along with Anson Burlingame (“Much has changed in U.S. over 14 years,” Globe, July 22), then he offered his readers a chance: “Go ahead — take your pick.”

    July 28, 2014

  • Your View: Boiling a frog

    We voters are now being urged to vote on Aug. 5 for Amendment 7 “to fix our roads, highways and bridges.”

    July 28, 2014

  • Our view: 'Yes' on 7

    Opponents of Amendment 7 say this: “Missouri families are already hard pressed to pay their bills during this period of slow economic recovery.”

    July 26, 2014

Local News
Twitter Updates
Follow us on twitter
Poll

Given that the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that electronic devices and communications are protected from searches and seizure without a warrant, do you think Missouri needs Amendment 9 added to its constitution?

A. Yes.
B. No.
     View Results
Facebook
NDN Video
Rodents Rampant in Gardens Around Louvre House to Vote on Slimmed-down Bill for Border Looming Demand Could Undercut Flight Safety Raw: 2 Shells Hit Fuel Tank at Gaza Power Plant Raw: Massive Explosions From Airstrikes in Gaza Giant Ketchup Bottle Water Tower Up for Sale Easier Nuclear Construction Promises Fall Short Kerry: Humanitarian Cease-fire Efforts Continue Raw: Corruption Trial Begins for Former Va Gov. The Carbon Trap: US Exports Global Warming UN Security Council Calls for Gaza Cease-fire Traditional African Dishes Teach Healthy Eating 13 Struck by Lightning on Calif. Beach Baseball Hall of Famers Inducted Israel, Hamas Trade Fire Despite Truce in Gaza Italy's Nibali Set to Win First Tour De France Raw: Shipwrecked Concordia Completes Last Voyage Raw: Sea Turtle Hatchlings Emerge From Nest Raw: Massive Dust Storm Covers Phoenix 12-hour Cease-fire in Gaza Fighting Begins
Sports