In response to:

Socialism v. Charity

oujon Wrote: Dec 28, 2012 5:53 AM
But don't you agree that while, in theory, there shouldn't be a need for government to offset anything, in reality, offsetting their ridiculous spending with (imaginary) cuts to other programs or higher taxes is exactly what politicians do. And whoever has the least effective lobbyists ends up holding the bag. In this case, the nonprofits spread the fear that without the deduction, their coffers would dry up. And then the taxpayers who donate (and also itemize) chime in. Then those taxpayers who are left, those who do not donate and those who donate but do not itemize, are stuck with a higher overall tax rate. And although the inclusion of the deduction should not mean a higher rate, in reality it usually does.

With the fiscal cliff looming, Washington is looking under every rock for new forms of “revenue.”

Nothing is sacred, not even the mortgage and charitable deductions, which some are recasting as “loopholes.” Ending the mortgage deduction when the housing market is finally showing signs of recovery would be like giving a cancer patient strychnine to make him feel better.

Even worse would be ending the charitable deduction, for the simple reason that this deduction encourages private sector benevolence, which the federal government under Barack Obama treats as pesky competition.

As government grows, the private sector wanes, a situation created...