In response to:

The Charitable Deduction Should Stay

wdwrkr Wrote: Dec 13, 2012 10:36 PM
"The Charitable Deduction Should Stay" No, it shouldn't. Stop using the tax code to promote a social agenda.
Panda Wrote: Dec 14, 2012 12:44 AM
It has nothing to do with a social agenda. It has to do with not receiving guaranteed revenue for product provided.

Businesses only provide the product if they're paid the money. Charities provide the product regardless. This is why those who donate to charities can write it off.

I'm against virtually all deductions, but not this one. Without it, you're treating a charity the same as businesses that receive guaranteed revenue for the products they sell, and that is a 100% inaccurate view of charities.
Tinsldr2 Wrote: Dec 14, 2012 1:07 AM
It has everything to do with a Social Agenda and you admit it below.

You want to encourage charitable giving. And you want to use the Gov tax code to do so. That is a "social agenda"

We agree on everything else but why not this?
Panda Wrote: Dec 14, 2012 1:24 AM
I admit no such thing. This is primarily an economic argument. Mentioning that those who give are doing good on behalf of others does not erase the economic argument.

By removing the deduction, you immediately treat the donor-charity relationship as equal to the patron-business relationship, which it clearly is not. Donors are sacrificing their money when they don't have to for the product--in fact, they might not even use the product at all. Charities are providing their products without guaranteed revenue. There is nothing in common to the patron-business relationship at all, but you would render them equal.

That makes no sense. And why is it such a big deal that we punish givers by wrongfully equating them with patrons?
Tinsldr2 Wrote: Dec 14, 2012 1:42 AM
I dont equate Charitable giving to a business , YOU DO

What a person does with a money is their business, give it, keep it, spend it burn it.

Gov has no say and no reason to encourage one over the other. Yet because you approve of charitable giving you want people that give to MEDIA MATTERS to get a tax deduction.

It has nothing to do with where or how the money is used, If the question is economic. It is just that you approve of the social aspect of charitable giving so you want to keep that deduction.
wdwrkr Wrote: Dec 14, 2012 11:59 AM
This is how we end up with an intricate, convoluted tax code. You "approve" of charitable deduction, therefore, let's keep it. Other folks "approve" of some other tax deductions that they want. And so, we keep adding these special interest deductions, and increase complexity of tax code.

At the very least, we should eliminate the Fed deduction for charitable contributions, and allow states to determine if they want this type (or, any other type) of deduction.

Giving to charities is great. And, it should be completely separated from the Fed gov't.

No conservative should really welcome tax increases of any kind.  But if there is one for which we should really hold the line, it's the charitable deduction.  It's not surprising that the Obama administration would want to do away with it; charities are one of the most important ways that a society can take care of itself -- and its poor and needy -- without relying on government.

Lessen charities' funding means reducing their reach and power.  Doing that through effectively increasing taxes -- that is, the state taking more instead -- is helping President Obama put the government at...