In response to:

To Hell With Charity? (Part 2 of 2)

NewJAl Wrote: Dec 25, 2012 10:55 PM
Purpose #2 resonated most with me. Charity, as direct as possible, from giver to receiver, often only allows the individual giver or organization credit. Giving by a politician, using other peoples' money, and using administrators, clerks, and on and on, is totally inefficient and open to corruption. I do not know what percent of a dollar gets to a needy person out of a tax payer's dollar, given. But I do know about 43 cents is borrowed. Totally senseless, and only to the advantage of the taker and politician, with no way of judging if parasitism is involved. And who will pay back the money borrowed, with the interest? Brings me back to the fiscal cliff. It's the spending, stupid.
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