A WSJ Editorial: The Charity Revolt

Among those shocked by President Obama’s 2010 budget, the most surprising are the true-blue liberals who run most of America’s nonprofits, universities and charities. How dare he limit tax deductions for charitable giving! They’re afraid they’ll get fewer donations, but they should be more concerned that Mr. Obama’s policies will shove them aside in favor of the New Charity State.

What did these nonprofit liberals expect, anyway? Mr. Obama is proposing a vast expansion of the entitlement state, and he has to find some way to pay for it. So logically enough, one of his ideas for funding public welfare is to reduce the tax benefit for private charity. His budget proposes to raise the top personal income tax rate to 39.6% in 2011 from 35%, and the 33% rate to 36% while reducing the tax benefit from itemized deductions for the top two brackets to 28% from 35% and 33%, respectively. The White House estimates the deduction reduction will yield $318 billion in revenue over 10 years.

From the Ivy League to the United Jewish Appeal, petitions and manifestos are in the works. The Independent Sector, otherwise eager to praise the Obama budget, worries the tax change “could be a disincentive to some donors.” According to the Center on Philanthropy at Indiana University, total itemized contributions from the highest income households would have dropped 4.8% — or $3.87 billion — in 2006 if the Obama policy had been in place. That year, Americans gave $186.6 billion to charity, more than 40% from those in the highest tax bracket. A back of the envelope calculation by the Tax Policy Center, a left-of-center think tank, estimates the Obama plan will reduce annual giving by 2%, or some $9 billion.

Read it all.

print
Posted in * Culture-Watch, * Economics, Politics, Budget, Charities/Non-Profit Organizations, Economy, Office of the President, Politics in General, President Barack Obama, Taxes, The U.S. Government

4 comments on “A WSJ Editorial: The Charity Revolt

  1. The_Archer_of_the_Forest says:

    Personally, I think some of President Obama’s economic policies are coming home to roost. He’s starting to bite the hand that feeds.
    Pardon the early morning cliche festival.

  2. Br. Michael says:

    Good. It’s about time these people get what they want to impose on the rest of us.
    [blockquote]Mr. Orszag revealed the real agenda at work when he pointed out that the money taken from the “rich” would be used to fund such Obama state-run charities as universal health care. The argument is that any potential declines in private gifts, whether to universities or foundations, will be balanced by increases in government grants paid with higher taxes — redistribution by another means. This is how Europe’s welfare state works: Taxes are so high that private citizens have come to believe it is only the state’s duty to support cultural institutions and public welfare. The ambit for private giving shrinks.[/blockquote]

    They want a socialist state. I hope they get it.

  3. palagious says:

    …and in Europe its welfare, not charity. Most people don’t feel its their responsibility after all they pay their taxes and that’s that!

  4. Don R says:

    And welfare is an entitlement from the government (i.e., something we are owed), not help from fellow citizens. It’s a lose-lose proposition.