-§ 170. Charitable, etc., contributions and gifts
Within President Obama's suggested budget is a proposal to end tax deductions for charitable donations.
The governing principle of policies formulated and executed by Democrats is control. The pursuit of control is manifest by that which lawmakers seek to both offer and obtain. Democrats identify problems and then create solutions for such problems. These solutions are control mechanisms - they control the poor by offering programs that generically and minimally solving problems; they control the rich by obtaining revenues that, in most cases, come from work, wit, risk, and luck (all of which entitle the individual to the potential reward).
This newest twist, ending tax deductions for charitable donations, is the latest and perhaps the ugliest manifestation of the pursuit of control. President Obama believes the projected $9 billion will be more effectively and more appropriately spent by him than by the individuals who earned it. Surely his justification will be the present economic crisis. Perhaps he will appeal to the roads that must be built, the health records that must be electronic, or the buildings that must be green. Whatever excuse his speechwriters find most politically agreeable, the governing principle is control.
Gag. Barf. Puke.
ReplyDeleteFor what it's worth, Obama on charitable giving;
ReplyDelete"Let's go back to the rate that existed under Ronald Reagan. People are still going to be able to make charitable contributions. It just means, if you give $100 and you're in this tax bracket, at a certain point, instead of being able to write off 36 percent or 39 percent, you're writing off 28 percent."
"Now, if it's really a charitable contribution, I'm assuming that that shouldn't be the determining factor as to whether you're giving that $100 to the homeless shelter down the street."
"And so this provision would affect about 1 percent of the American people. They would still get deductions. It's just that they wouldn't be able to write off 39 percent."
"In that sense, what it would do is it would equalize -- when I give $100, I'd get the same amount of deduction as when some -- a bus driver who's making $50,000 a year, or $40,000 a year, gives that same $100. Right now, he gets 28 percent -- he gets to write off 28 percent. I get to write off 39 percent. I don't think that's fair."
"So I think this was a good idea. I think it is a realistic way for us to raise some revenue from people who've benefited enormously over the last several years."
"It's not going to cripple them. They'll still be well-to-do. And, you know, ultimately, if we're going to tackle the serious problems that we've got, then, in some cases, those who are more fortunate are going to have to pay a little bit more."