In response to:

To Hell With Charity? (Part 2 of 2)

Don't Tread On Me3 Wrote: Dec 25, 2012 8:36 AM
The meat of this article: "Democrats and Republicans alike have come to refer to the charitable deduction's 'cost' to the government. This language, however, only makes sense if one concedes that government has first call on every dollar earned in America. It isn't obvious why this starting point is the correct one. It is just as easy to begin with the proposition that the earner owns the money, in which case it is the removal of the deduction -- or the tax itself -- that is a cost." Any Republican who blathers about what exemptions & deductions "cost" government needs to go flying out of the party with bootmarks on his/her rear. Leave that statist mentality to the Demmies!
Don't Tread On Me3 Wrote: Dec 25, 2012 8:40 AM
The US was founded on the principle that "this starting point" i.e. the idea that government has "first call" on the peoples' wealth & earnings, is in fact grotesquely wrong & antithetical to the very idea of individual worth & dignity. Government exists as a necessary, limited service for the people, not for its own sake or that of the elite ruling class ensconced in it.
Imagine it's Christmas Eve in your local church and the offering plate is passed to help a local orphanage build an addition because there's "no room in the inn." But just when you're about to give generously to the cause, you recall that politicians in Washington recently voted to reduce tax deductions for charitable giving.

Would you give as much under reduced charitable deductions?

Despite the fact that charitable deductions are the 10th-most popular tax break (nearly 40 million Americans claim them annually), those in Washington are willing to gamble that you're going to give as generously in the future without it. But...

Related Tags: Charity