Town Square

Post a New Topic

On Obama's intent to dramatically decrease charitable giving...

Original post made by ! on Oct 12, 2009

As I read Jeb's article on the wonderful Healing Therapies Foundation, I couldn't help to wonder how this organization and all the other charities will fare when Obama's policies take full effect. Haven't you heard? He is dramatically reducing the tax incentive to make charitable contributions.

It shouldn't surprise anyone, however. Here is a quiz question: Do you know what the level of charitable contributions are per capita in socialist countries? Virtually zero...because naturally people believe that the State (i.e. Big Government) should make the sole decision on which organizations to fund and how much.

Here is more information from the Heritage Foundation on Obama's intent regarding reducing charitable giving...

Proposed Decrease in Charitable Tax Deduction Crowds Out Civil Society
by Ryan Messmore

Many nonprofit organizations are under severe financial pressure. They need donations more than ever, and the hurting people they serve have a stake in the unrestrained flow of those donations.

However, President Barack Obama's proposed budget for fiscal year (FY) 2010 moves in the opposite direc­tion. It would raise taxes on those who can give the most and reduce their income tax deduction for chari­table giving. This not only weakens one of the incen­tives to give, but also shifts perceived responsibility for social welfare from individual donors toward the state.

(For more info, click the following...)

Web Link


Comments (26)

Posted by Stacey, a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Oct 12, 2009 at 6:35 pm

Stacey is a registered user.

Those who donate only because of a tax deduction are ...


Posted by !, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Oct 12, 2009 at 6:51 pm

Stacey...my point is that the outcome of his policy is a huge negative impact on charities. If Obama is taxing us more and more, not to mention the State, this will result in much less discretionary funds by private citizens which could be given to charity.

If you provide financial incentives for people to contribute more, the charitable organizations will receive more. I know this is hard for liberals to understand.

By the way, it is my belief that conservatives are much more generous in their charitable giving than bleeding heart liberals...tho I have no empirical data to back this up. Perhaps an interested reader could do some research on this.


Posted by Cholo, a resident of Livermore
on Oct 12, 2009 at 7:10 pm

In my opinion, the only reason for your post is to offer free disinformation...sad.


Posted by !, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Oct 12, 2009 at 7:16 pm

Tell me, Cholo, what specifically do you believe is not factual in the Heritage report? Rather than make broad swipes like a drive-by critic, let's see you back up your claims.


Posted by Michael, a resident of Livermore
on Oct 12, 2009 at 7:17 pm

I have stopped donating because at this point it seems to be meaningless because if organizations, states, groups, or cities wait long enough the government will just give them the money and I am in the 35% tax bracket and have no house payment or deductions and there are many more out there like me right now who are just sitting on the sidelines and watching what will happen or not happen.


Posted by Cholo, a resident of Livermore
on Oct 12, 2009 at 7:22 pm

Those who donate only because of a tax deduction are...answer please!

PING!


Posted by Cholo, a resident of Livermore
on Oct 12, 2009 at 7:25 pm

Michael doesn't seem like a hang around the fort type who hangs on the sidelines and watches what will happen or not happen.

! & Michael love to polish up their distorted fantasies and pass them off as fact.

sad...


Posted by Michael, a resident of Livermore
on Oct 12, 2009 at 7:29 pm

Read again. I do not do it nor have I ever because of the write off. It just does not seem necessary any longer when the government will pay.


Posted by Cholo, a resident of Livermore
on Oct 12, 2009 at 7:32 pm

unless you post proof of your donations, you have no credibility...please post the proof...I'm waiting...tee hee hee, tee hee hee..."you lie".


Posted by poster boy, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Oct 12, 2009 at 7:49 pm

This is fascinating in its twisted thinking. For over 30 years we've been told that cutting taxes on the rich will result in economic growth for all because they will invest that money in the economy and it will trickle down to the rest of us. Since that has proven to be an epic failure not once (in the 80s when average income for americans increased at its slowest rate in 60 years) but twice (in the bush 2 years when average income for Americans actually DROPPED) we can count on the rightwing heritage foundation to chuck that rationale out the window and replace it was some garbage about how the rich won't donate to charities if we raise their taxes. This is classic.

First off, the reason "Barack Obama's proposed budget for fiscal year (FY) 2010...would raise taxes on those who can give the most" is because bush's massive 1.6 trillion tax cut to the rich passed in 2001 and 2003 will begin sunsetting. This isn't Obama increasing taxes so much as allowing the massive tax cuts for the rich to expire.

Furthermore, the article claims that most charities are hurting, etc. and that an increase in taxes will drive them all over the edge because the rich will stop donating. That's great, but if we're to believe that the rich become such generous givers due to tax cuts, why aren't these charities flush with cash after the last 8 years of massive tax cuts for the top 1%? But leave it up to well-funded rightwing think tanks to come up with completely contradictory rationales for covering their own checkbooks.

But don't let nuance like this get in the way of propoganda.


Posted by Gene, a resident of Apperson Ridge
on Oct 12, 2009 at 8:02 pm

Dear ACORN Boy (aka Poster Boy):

Guess we will have to ask the Healing Therapies Foundation and others what there level of charitable contributions are after Obama's policies are fully operational. Let's hope for this Foundation's sake, and others, that they are in good graces with the Obama Admin. because organizations like this will have to rely on Big Govt much more than private contributions.


Posted by poster boy, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Oct 12, 2009 at 8:38 pm

Dear Gene,
Yes. I'm sure the drop in charitable donations we'll be seeing over the next few years has nothing to do with the double-digit unemployment, trillion dollar deficits, and complete breakdown of the financial system that Obama inherited (yes, these things all happened BEFORE obama became president). No, it'll be because Obama allowed Bush's tax cuts to expire. Millions have lost their homes, their jobs, their healthcare, are struggling to feed their own families, are actually applying for aid from the charities they once donated to, and after all that we'll be sold the garbage from the heritage foundation that donations are down because obama "raised" taxes on the rich. Do you even think these things through?


Posted by Gene, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Oct 12, 2009 at 8:51 pm

Posterchild,
I was not a fan of Bush's bailouts, however Obama is exacerbating the financial crisis exponentially. You ask "do I even think these things thru"...anyone can see that his policies are 180 degrees in the opposite direction of turning the economy around. That is not his goal...and if you are HOPING for this to turnaround by Obama, you are fooling yourself. It is his deliberate goal to foment economic and social chaos because that is what an Alinsky Marxist believes in.

Wake up before it is too late.


Posted by Stay Cool, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Oct 12, 2009 at 8:56 pm

Wow.


Posted by Love Palin, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Oct 12, 2009 at 9:04 pm

Or maybe we should just give all our tax money to rich Wall Street executives with failed businesses like Sarah Palin wanted to do. How does a so-called "conservative" support a $700 Billion big government tax payer bailout (TARP).

Where's the conservative alternative to Obama? Who is the savior of the conservatives, or will I have to vote against Palin in 2012 like I voted against her in 2008?


Posted by poster boy, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Oct 12, 2009 at 9:22 pm

Gene,
Re: "It is his deliberate goal to foment economic and social chaos because that is what an Alinsky Marxist believes in."

If this is the case, then I can only hope he's half as successful as bush was, because that man was a master at fomenting economic and social chaos. Yes, I need to wake up. Perhaps you should get a clue...


Posted by Michael, a resident of Livermore
on Oct 12, 2009 at 9:26 pm

Posterchild,

Be honest with yourself and us for a change and think objectively and answer this question. Do you really believe that Obama is doing a good job or for that matter that he remotely knows what he is doing with the broad background of leadership in his resume?


Posted by !, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Oct 12, 2009 at 9:27 pm

I cannot defend Bush's bailout. He abandoned free market principles that conservatives like me espouse. From this respect, Bush was not a conservative. Nor was McCain a conserv and that is a big factor why he lost (with a little help from ACORN and the illegitimate caucuses that reduced Hillary's chances).

I don't know who will run against Obama. I am not a fan of Huckabee or Palin. Romney has the competence and I would vote for him tho I wish he were more of a pitbull. An up and coming Reagan Conserv is Mike Pence (R-IND) tho his next spot may be Speaker of the House.


Posted by poster boy, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Oct 12, 2009 at 9:28 pm

Gene,

One more thing. When obama took over the banking system was on the verge of collapse, GM and Chrysler were nearly bankrupt and on life support, the economy had experience 5 straight quarters of negative growth with it peaking at a 6% drop in Q4 2008, and the economy was shedding over 750k jobs per month. In the past 9 months, we've seen the banking system stabilize, the stock market rebound (up over 30% since march), and we'll see the first quarter of positive growth this quarter (estimates are above a robust 3%).

But after all these FACTS, i can see why you'd say "anyone can see that his policies are 180 degrees in the opposite direction of turning the economy around." Brilliant.


Posted by Michael, a resident of Livermore
on Oct 12, 2009 at 9:32 pm

Posterchild,

Where do you get your facts? Do you realize that GM and Chrysler actually lost marketshare during the cash for clunkers offering to Hyundai of all companies and that their September sales were off 45% and that they are burning through our cash real quick.......why? because they make crummy cars and should have been allowed to collapse as they will regardless.


Posted by Gene, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Oct 12, 2009 at 9:47 pm

Also, GM and Chrysler went bankrupt thanks In large part to Big Govt's burdensome CAFE standards that increased the costs of competition immeasurably, not to mention the huge role of labor unions. Yes, management made some key marketing mistakes but GM and Chrysler were hamstrung from producing what the consumer wanted.


Posted by poster boy, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Oct 12, 2009 at 9:48 pm

! and gene,
RE: "Do you really believe that Obama is doing a good job or for that matter that he remotely knows what he is doing with the broad background of leadership in his resume?"

Yes, I believe he is doing a good job. Do I believe he's doing a great job? No. He's dealing with more in 9 months than most presidents deal with in their entire 8 year administration. The list is long and if you need me to go through it line-by-line, I will. I've already touched on the rebounding economy under Obama's watch. Do I wish he'd done more to rein in wall street excesses, yes, but I also understand he's trying to stabilize a fragile financial system. You can't take a heartattack victim and put them on a crash liquid diet and not expect him to freak out. First stabilize the heart, then deal with the systems and practices that led to his heart failure. Do I wish he'd moved more quickly to change some of the policies regarding gays in the military or other social issues? yes, he's been slow on that, but I understand why. I actually think the stimulus package he passed was too small, but I understand that he got the most he could get through congress. In other words, I'm a realist when it comes to what he can and cannot achieve. I'm annoyed that he hasn't rolled back some of the infringements on our civil liberties that the patriot act introduced. I'm encouraged that he seems to not buy into the crap that we need to do a repeat of vietnam and iraq in afghanistan and seems willing to focus more on eradicating alqaeda in its pakistani strongholds. In other words, he's not perfect, but he's a heckuva lot better than the dolt that preceeded him. Don't even get me started with comparing resumes between bush and obama. Bush led 3 companies into bankruptcy, spent the bulk of his adult life as a drunk, and pulled himself together enough to have daddy's friends hand him a major league baseball franchise. I think I'll take the editor of the Harvard Law Review over that alone.

RE: "a big factor why he lost (with a little help from ACORN and the illegitimate caucuses that reduced Hillary's chances)."
So here we go reliving the 2008 election. Please explain to me how ACORN delivered 10 million extra votes to Obama. Please? Even 1% of that...show how they delivered even 100,000 votes to him. This myth of the big bad ACORN has either got to be backed up with some real evidence or it needs to drop. It's getting old. As for the "illegitimate caucuses", the entire caucus process was spelled out in the democratic party processes from day 1. It's not obama's fault that he played the system better than hillary's political team, most of whom didn't appear to understand how the caucus system worked. Obama EARNED that nomination by playing by the rules the party laid out. To claim his nomination was illegitimate is itself an illegitimate claim...unless you have some actual verifiable evidence to present....doubtful...


Posted by poster boy, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Oct 12, 2009 at 9:55 pm

Michael,

And exactly what does your point have to do with anything? Cash For Clunkers was exactly .03% of the entire stimulus package. And you seem to imply that Obama is to blame for GM producing a crappy product. And I'm not sure if you notice, but a lot of Americans work for foreign car companies like Toyota and Honda, so yeah it's crappy that a lot of that money went to foreign competitors of GM and Chrysler (which is now a foreign car company anyway, since it's now owned by Fiat) but most of those cars were actually built in the states, so that alone kept more americans employed.

As for CAFE standards and unions killing GM, Toyota and Honda dealt with the same standards and have their own unionized shops as well, and somehow they managed not to go bankrupt. I'm just sayin...


Posted by Opaque, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Oct 14, 2009 at 8:51 am

What state, states, country or countries form of socialism was the person referring to? Sounds more like an assumption than a theory to me. Is this person suggesting that the United States is headed towards a Socialistic form of government? I was not aware that Socialists existed as an electoral party. To say the majority of Americans contribute to charity for the tax break is something I find hard to believe. So what you are saying is only people who can itemize their tax return donate to charitable foundations or society's? Where is the factual data to prove that? So the most wealthy contribute the most money to charities? So we should forgive the transgressions of outlaw motorcycle gangs because they have a toy drive once a year? Makes all the bad go away? And all of a sudden The President of the United States is being credited with the creation of Socialism? The same man that just won the Nobel Peace Prize? Or is this person trying to say that Democrats are Socialists. And that maybe Socialism is half way between Capitalism and Communism? I'm just sayin yo. I think this person might be comparing apple pie to communism. Well ... my idea makes about as much sense as that one does. I'm sure there is a bell curve out there or some sort of chart or graph to represent all of this. The more information we get the more questions we seem to have. I love it. Like Peewee said "its like unraveling a sweater that someone keeps knitting and knitting and knitting."


Posted by Patriot Liberal, a resident of Downtown
on Oct 14, 2009 at 9:36 am

A big thanks out to Poster Boy! You are articulate and know your facts. You put on a fantastic intelligent debate, backed by facts and a wholesome detailed summary of such. A breath of fresh air for sure.

There can not and will not be an equilly fact supported rebuttal backed by facts, because there are NO facts to support the rhetoric that come out from those who oppose Obama.

A BIG thanks goes out to the entire Pleasanton Weekly Forum community, as far as this thread goes! For the most part, no major attacks or hostility, just a discussion.

I am relieved to hear the facts as far as the political make up of Pleasnton, being just a bit more Republican in numbers, but discouraged that the vast majority posting on this forum are indeed the far right.


Posted by Opaque, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Oct 14, 2009 at 10:04 am

Another thought and then I must go. If President Obamas' health care plan will end charitable giving. Is that like saying if you mandate people be respectful, truthful and thoughtful with their opinions here, nobody will want to post? Spreading the power evenly over the masses. Making it all transparent and available to everyone. Is that the basic fear? The equal sharing of opportunity and wealth in this country regardless of how industrious or lazy a person is? I find it amusing that in order to voice ones fears over such ideas they would have to post someplace that seems to advocate the same fundamental ideas that caused those fears in the first place. On the other hand Its like commuting to work in a 40 year old rusty dilapidated school bus with faulty exhaust and painting a warning message across the side that reads "Global Warming The End Is Near." More people might see your message, but no reasonably intelligent person is going to take you serious. But if attention was all you were after in the first place ... then it suited your needs just fine.


If you were a member and logged in you could track comments from this story.

Post a comment

Posting an item on Town Square is simple and requires no registration. Just complete this form and hit "submit" and your topic will appear online. Please be respectful and truthful in your postings so Town Square will continue to be a thoughtful gathering place for sharing community information and opinion. All postings are subject to our TERMS OF USE, and may be deleted if deemed inappropriate by our staff.

We prefer that you use your real name, but you may use any "member" name you wish.

Name: *

Select your neighborhood or school community: *

Comment: *

Verification code: *
Enter the verification code exactly as shown, using capital and lowercase letters, in the multi-colored box.

*Required Fields

PG&E: How does the piper pay?
By Tom Cushing | 7 comments | 626 views

More changes coming to ValleyCare
By Tim Hunt | 17 comments | 603 views

Getting rid of an old toilet
By Roz Rogoff | 11 comments | 578 views

Take Full Advantage of Free Standardized Testing Opportunities
By Elizabeth LaScala | 0 comments | 490 views