I'm disgusted by the perspective on private money that underlies this New York Times article about taxes and charitable giving.
The rich are giving more to charity than ever, but people like Mr. Broad are not the only ones footing the bill for such generosity. For every three dollars they give away, the federal government typically gives up a dollar or more in tax revenue, because of the charitable tax deduction and by not collecting estate taxes.
The government doesn't "give up" money when they don't collect it as a tax! My marginal tax rate is 40%, but the government isn't "giving up" the other 60% of my income! It's exactly the reverse: we taxpayers decide how much we want to spend on government, and we sacrifice towards that end a portion of the money that rightfully belongs to us. The default position of that money is my pocket, not some government coffer.
Elaborating in an interview, Mr. Gross [a billionaire who is against the charitable tax exemption] said he did not think the public benefits from philanthropy were commensurate with the tax breaks that givers receive. “I don’t think we’re getting the bang for the buck for gifts to build football stadiums and concert halls, with all due respect to Carnegie Hall and other institutions,†he said. “I don’t think the public would vote for spending tax dollars on those things.â€
And I doubt "the public" would vote to spend the 60% of my income that Ikeep the same way I decide to spend it. So what? It's not "the public's" money, it's mine!
It disgusts me that so many Americans apparently believe that the money they earn goes first to the government, and then that by government benevolence the person who actually earned the money and created wealth gets to keep some small portion of it. I believe this attitude exists in large part because of our system of income tax withholding, which should be abolished.
(HT: Reader beesforfree.)
Kind of like how government officials are helping people forget that all rights flow from inalienable sources instead of the government's indulgence in not outlawing them yet.
Tax is the individual's money which he pays towards public costs, you are right.
But I don't see anything wrong with discussing how taxes should be levied. In this example, the government relaxes tax on donations to charity. Mr. Gross points out that not all charities are worthy of tax exemption in his opinion, gives some examples.
Nowhere is he suggesting that the persons own income after tax cannot be donated to whatever the individual wants.
Do you object to anything about this aside from the implication about government 'ownership' of public money? Are you saying that, because the portion of your income which is taxed does belong to you to start with, that any discussion about which types of spending qualify for tax exemption is off limits?
jez: I resent the perspective that the government relaxes tax on donations to charity. That's like saying the government relaxes tax on the last 60% of my income. Keeping all my money is the default position, and the citizens have decided that we don't want to contribute to the government a portion of what we give charitably to other causes.
I also resent the idea that the government "wants" anything of its own volition. The government works for the citizenry, and its only job is to carry out our wishes. The government should have no agenda of its own.
I don't know what other perspective there is frankly. I could put it in the passive voice if you like: "Tax is relaxed on income spent on donations to charitable organisations".
The fact is, we are taxed, and not paying tax is illegal. Practically, if not morally, the default (simplified) position is that x% of your income + y% of your spending is taxed.
What's the problem with a member of the citizenry making the point that some of the spending which is not currently taxed maybe ought to be?
The government *is* the citizenry, or at least represents it, and is charged with administrating its collective requirements.
I don't know, I'm all confused now :) I think my terms are getting crossed up.