With each passing day it seems ever more charitable to give President Obama the benefit of the doubt regarding his intelligence.
Obama thinks it's "the right thing to do" to reduce the tax deduction for charitable contributions from 39% to 28% for the wealthiest givers. Currently a rich donor can deduct more than a middle class donor, and Obama doesn't think that's fair.
Fair? (This reminds me of Obama's comments during the campaign when he said he still favored higher tax rates on capital gains despite evidence that more revenue is generated by lower rates. His reason: fairness.)
Obama also doesn't think this will effect charitable giving. He said, "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 hundred dollars to the homeless shelter down the street."
I know Obama is overrated by many, but is Obama really this clueless?
Suppose after investments and expenses a wealthy person has $100,000 remaining to give to charity. Currently, that money can be donated and no taxes are owed on the money. Under Obama's plan, in order to give $100,000, 11% of that money will have to be given to the government. That leaves $89,000 for the charity.
How is this more fair?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
Glad you're back! You went silent for a bit...got me nervous.
ReplyDeleteThey haven't silenced me yet!
ReplyDeleteI'm confused how Obama can find it unfair that one might be able to fully deduct a charitable contribution at a full 39% when someone else might be able to fully deduct a contribution at some lower rate and yet not think it's unfair to tax regular income at these different rates!
ReplyDeleteCharitable deductions are not a gift from the government to the giver! What on Earth are you thinking, Obama? I think I have an idea: reducing the incentive to give leaves those dependent on charities instead more dependent on government. This might fit in well with Obama's socialist movement.