Charitable Giving: Will Universities, Missions, and Churches suffer if the Rich have less of a Tax Deduction?

Comment #1: (From the Right) I think reducing the tax deductions on charitable giving is a bad idea. The top 1% give 50% of the charitable gifts in the US. I think this would have a terrible impact on universities, city missions, and churches.

What do you think?

From the Right

Response #1: (Left of Center)
Well, first of all the 1% would still get a tax deduction, just not a large as before. Secondly, if I (we) as middle class Americans have to make adjustments to stretch our dollar, why should the 1%? We give to charities and churches every year, regardless to economy, (assuming one is

employed and able to give). I don't base my giving on what I can write-off, or get back, that is just an added perk. The 1% should be just fine with their continued giving, while still receiving an extra perk, again just no as big as before. This is all to do about nothing. If the 1% only base

their giving on the ability to reduce their taxable income, then their heart is in the wrong place to begin with. God's law of sowing and reaping trumps the IRS. A tithe is based on 10% of your income, not a % of your tax write-off.

Left of Center

Comment #2 (From the Right)
You can give up to 50% of your income and receive a tax deduction. You are sadly mistaken if you think rich people do not include that in their estate planning and give accordingly over the last 5-10 years of their life.

So, the churches, city missions, and universities will suffer. Which I think is the plan. They want everyone to rely 100% on government for all needs. This is a great way to push out the church, city missions (most with a religious mission), and private universities (many of them founded on Christian Principles).

From the Right

Response #2: (Left of Center)
Keep in mind "The Rich" are still getting a tax deduction. There are all types of "Rich". I consider myself extremely rich, not so much financially, only because I don't quiet make over $250K, yet. But even if I were over $250K, I would be willing to make additional sacrifices for my country and I believe in what President Obama is trying to do.

If everyone (rich, poor, or some where in between) had a godly heart, I dare say we would not need government at all. We would all live in harmony under a theocracy, rather than a democracy. Under a Democracy, there has to be checks and balances when it comes to power, wealth, and accountability, otherwise there would be total chaos. When I say balance, I am not implying equal, but I am implying fair. You have the Greedy-Wealthy, as well as the Charitable-Wealthy. Honest government should aid in keeping the balance. I think President Obama is trying to establish honest government.

Left of Center

Style and Substance

President Obama is doing a great job! I'm glad I voted for President Obama. So far, the CHANGE is in the pudding, and I'm eating the pudding. Change is good. President Obama is the right man for the time.

Democrats, Moderates, Independents, and 3 Republicans for Obama.

Let's continue to pray God's wisdom, favor and protection for President Obama.

The Party of No

The recent description or characterization of the Republican Party has been “The Party of No”.
Lead by Dr. No -- Rush Limbaugh. Republicans have been accused of organizing a secret solidarity pack against any plan President Obama and his administration proposes. It’s also been implied that the new Republican Party slogan is “Just Say No”. From GOP (Grand Old Party) to PON (Party Of No).

When asked if republicans offer Economic Recovery Plan alternatives, solutions, or plans, the response was, you guessed it, No. The 16 page Economic Recovery Brief, released earlier this week, does not count. (i.e. = to No)

Since the stimulus plan was signed, the markets has begun to show signs of consistent positive gains, the average 30 fixed rate mortgages have dropped, new home sales have begun to rise, and durable goods are on the increased. Will the “Party of No” give the Obama administration some credit??? I guessing, No.

Left of Center

If there is one thing Washington D.C. is good at, it would have to be finger pointing.

As President Obama continues to reach across the aisle, and across the country, garnering support for the Economic Recovery Plan, finger pointing persists over who is responsible for the AIG debacle. I assure you, there is enough blame to go around. Should the current administration have attempted to re-negotiate contract language, written in 2008 by the former administration, for payouts of AIG bonuses, meanwhile delaying the stimulus package as the country continues to hemorrhage from economic blunt trauma? No one argues the point that paying out those bonuses given the country's current predicament -- which was intensified in great part by AIG's reckless behavior -- was inappropriate and distasteful, contract or no contract. But the legislative proposals on the table to rectify the situation may end up doing more damage than good in the broader scheme of things. No legal means existed to resolve AIG like FDIC resolves banks. "The government was faced with no good options", Treasury secretary Giethner added.

In order to prevent a recurrence of the AIG catastrophe, officials requested Congress to grant regulators resolution authority. This would give the government power to reorganize or restructure a non-bank company. Such powers would include selling off assets and subsidiaries, imposing limits on executive compensation and taking action on risky holdings.
Republicans argue, too much regulation would impose more “big government”, fearing government control of private business. Democrats argue, there needs to be some regulation over financial institutions deemed too big to fail. Democrats suggest corporation be responsible to carry large enough Capital reserves, to help stave of a financial crisis.

Perhaps Republicans and Democrats can come to an agreement of how must regulation is enough, but there needs to be some regulation. Allowing major institutions to fail, effecting loss of pensions, demised 401K, and job loss, is not the best option.

Left of Center

In the midst of all the anger and outrage, is the public being fair to AIG?

I can't help but liken the AIG fiasco to the Frankenstein Monster, best portrayed by famed actor Boris Karloff. The monster was put together by various parts to form one giant being. When the monster was exposed to the public, it came across a little girl who was not frightened by his appearance. If my memory serves me correct, the little girl may have been blind. In any event, the little girl sensing the monster’s presents, offered him a flower off the river bank. When the towns folk saw the monster near the little girl they instantly assumed the monster would harm the little girl, when in actuality it was not the monsters intent to harm the little girl at all. Had the monster stayed in its element, within the mad scientist laboratory, not trying to venture out into unknown territory, life would have been great for the monster and no one, including the monster, would have been hurt.

If AIG had just did what it does best, offer sound insurance, and not venture out into the risky business of derivatives, credit default swaps or toxic assets, no one, including AIG, would have been hurt. The public outrage to kill the perceived "AIG monster" has gotten out of hand. Some of the employees have actually received death threats. While I understand the public's anger and outrage over using tax payer dollars to payout retention bonuses, while the country is in economic straits, this is still no cause for rioting or burning people at the stake. Calm down, take a deep breath, and get more of the facts.

Many AIG employees don't even work in the financial division, but are still berated because of guilt by association. A few employees agreed to take a salary of $1 for several months with promises of a paycheck (the now infamous bonus) by March of 2009. Those bonuses were included in employee contracts written in early 2008. Now imagine your salary is $50K per year, and your employer negotiated to pay you $10K now and the balance of $40K six months. Six months later, would you expect to receive your $40K, or would you be O.K. with the company telling you, "my bad, we had a problem at the payroll office and you won't be getting your $40K balance, but thanks for the tireless hours and free labor." Still no sympathy for AIG employees?

Perhaps if AIG bonuses weren’t tied to our tax payer dollars funding these payouts, or the fact that so many other people, like auto-workers, were asked to make deep sacrifices and be willing to reduced their pay in order to keep a job, perhaps you (we) could have a little more sympathy. Maybe like some Americans, who may have lost their jobs all together, a $750 to $1 million dollar bonus just still doesn't seem like much of a sacrifice. I’m beginning to feel your pain, but it’s still no cause for death threats or violence.

Left of Center

AIG, a name by any other name would smell as sweet...

In case you haven't noticed, American International Group's (AIG) property/casualty insurance headquarters building in lower Manhattan is nameless after the removal of the AIG logo from its façade of its New York location. In an effort to become less conspicuous, in the wake of public outrage over retention bonuses paid out to employees in the company's financial products division, AIG chief Edward Liddy is looking to change the company's signature building name at 175 Water Street in lower Manhattan. AIG announced in early March that it had formed a new holding company named AIU Holdings Inc. for its worldwide property/casualty insurance operations. The name comes from AIG's well-known international brand, American International Underwriters, but it isn't necessarily the name the company will settle on.

This is perhaps a smart move, giving the fact “branding” is an integral to product perception of any product. As you may recall, ValuJet changed to Air Tran in the wake of a tragic crash in 1996.

Left Of Center

To give, or not to give, that is the question

A Republican friend commented: I think reducing the tax deductions on charitable giving is a bad idea. The top 1% give 50% of the charitable gifts in the US. I think this would have a terrible impact on universities, city missions, and churches.

Here's what I think: Well, first of all the 1% would still get a tax deduction, just not a large as before. Secondly, if I (we) as middle class Americans have to make adjustments to stretch our dollar, why shouldn't the 1%? I give to charities and churches every year, regardless to economy, (assuming one is employed and able to give). I don't base my giving on what I can write-off, or get back, that is just an added perk. The 1% should be just fine
with their continued giving, while still receiving a tax break, again just not as big as before. This is all to do about nothing. If the 1% only base their giving on the ability to reduce their taxable income, then their heart is in the wrong place to begin with. God's law of sowing and reaping trumps the IRS. A tithe is based on 10% of your income, not a % of your tax write-off.

Left of Center

Is President Obama doing too much too fast?

"By the time Obama notched his 50th day last week, he had already signed seven bills, many of them epic in size and scope. They included the enormous $787 billion stimulus package, another aimed at guaranteeing equal pay for women, and an expansion by 4 million kids of the nation's largest health care program for children. Bush? In his first 50 days, he signed one bill - extolling the virtues of former President Ronald Reagan on the occasion of his 90th birthday.”
... nydailynews

President Obama has been all business since day one in the White House. Whether one totally agrees with every detail of each bill, it is extremely refreshing to see a president in the White House who is intellectual, articulate, and determined to move the country in the right direction towards economic recovery, equality, and taking care of the least of these, our countries children. President Obama has been the man with the plan, or should I say plans.

It is unfortunate that President Obama, and the Democratic Congress, inherited such a deficit. As a result, any necessary spending can easily be targeted by Republicans as wasteful government spending, but in fact, in order to be in such a deficit in the first place, speaks to the excessive government spending by the former administration.


Left of Center...