Lion of the Blogosphere

End tax breaks for charitable giving

I’ve long been opposed to tax breaks for charitable giving, because I am certain that it’s being massively abused. Furthermore, philanthropy is something that rich people do for a hobby, so they shouldn’t get a tax deduction for it any more than a prole should get a tax deduction for buying dumb prole stuff like off-road vehicles or jet skis.

We should be worried about politically motivated investigations, like New York State investigating Trump, not because he’s doing anything that boatloads of other rich people aren’t doing, but because the liberals running New York State hate him and want to punish him for being president.

Why isn’t anyone investigating Clinton’s charity? Isn’t it fishy how the charity got all sorts of huge donations from the kind of people who would benefit from influencing U.S policy?

Written by Lion of the Blogosphere

June 15, 2018 at EDT am

Posted in Politics, Taxes

42 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. Absolutely. Causes nothing but fraud and contempt for religion. Religion would be in a much better shape without it.

    Yakov

    June 15, 2018 at EDT am

    • Very perceptive.

      Curle

      June 15, 2018 at EDT pm

    • I’ve definitely thought that all these religious charities getting money to relocate immigrants should have their funding cut. Bush(43) was the one who pushed to open up religious charities for government funding. And I was strongly against it at the time.

      destructure

      June 15, 2018 at EDT pm

  2. Better yet, let’s end another value transference scheme!

    JS

    June 15, 2018 at EDT am

  3. “Furthermore, philanthropy is something that rich people do for a hobby, so they shouldn’t get a tax deduction for it any more than a prole should get a tax deduction for buying dumb prole stuff like off-road vehicles or jet skis”

    From a virtue signaling standpoint, philanthropy has a societal benefit. It alleviates a disadvantage.

    Proles buying dumb prole stuff like pickup trucks and surf boards (both items are also a Hipster phenomenon) serves no benefit to society at large.

    JS

    June 15, 2018 at EDT am

    • If everyone stopped buying useless crap, then the economy would collapse overnight. Our entire society is built upon a foundation of mindless consumerism.

      Remember how, after 9/11, Bush gave a speech telling Americans to do their patriotic duty and go to Disney World? Can you think of a bigger money-sucking racket than the House of Mouse?

      Stan Adams

      June 15, 2018 at EDT pm

  4. Much of the tax code is just a spoils system for the influential. It’s meant to be exploitable for political, social, and financial ends, and to be unfathomable to those not trained in its intricacies. For those reasons it will never be rationalized.

    ice hole

    June 15, 2018 at EDT am

    • This is why only two types of people pay taxes:

      1. The one’s that don’t have a choice.
      2. Morons.

      Yakov

      June 15, 2018 at EDT pm

      • How do you get loans?

        Magnavox

        June 15, 2018 at EDT pm

    • The vast majority of arguments for simplifying the tax code are really just arguments for flattening it, which has nothing to do with the complexity of the tax code as experienced by tax payers. We could probably get somewhere if people weren’t stupid enough to buy into that right wing line.

      Magnavox

      June 15, 2018 at EDT pm

      • I gotta agree with Magnavox on this. Few things are as eye roll-inducing as the perennial calls for a “flat tax.” As if looking up the tax you owe in a table, or having the computer do it, is a problem.

        Steverino@steverino.com

        June 15, 2018 at EDT pm

      • Yes just a simple question put to them will show they don’t know anything about the way taxes work now. Like what an exemption is (or was until this year).

        Mrs Stitch

        June 15, 2018 at EDT pm

  5. From what I understand, donations to the Clintons’ charity dried up right after Hillary Clinton was defeated in her presidential bid. But even in the absence of tax breaks, these sorts of abuses would occur.

    fortaleza84

    June 15, 2018 at EDT am

  6. While you are at it, why not end tax exempt non-profit corporations? If they are non-profit, what the hell would they be paying taxes on anyway?

    Steverino@steverino.com

    June 15, 2018 at EDT pm

    • The donations could be considered taxable income without the tax exemption.

      Lion of the Blogosphere

      June 15, 2018 at EDT pm

      • Gee Lion, this is unexpected. I had no idea you were this generous. I suppose you know that without tax benefits most people probably couldn’t really afford to give even half as much to charity due to the high cost of living don’t you? Its really sweet that you’d be willing to pay twice or three times the taxes you do now in order to get the government to do what these charities can no longer do due to changing the tax laws to not allow people to write off charitable contributions. You must really care a lot about the poor and support massive increases in government programs to push the same kind of policies that Bernie Sanders voters do.

        Joshua Sinistar

        June 16, 2018 at EDT am

    • Much of the donations are paid off to the directors and their roundtable who run these legit scams!

      JS

      June 15, 2018 at EDT pm

    • They have some pretty heavy reporting requirements to show what they do with their money.

      Mrs Stitch

      June 15, 2018 at EDT pm

  7. “Why isn’t anyone investigating Clinton’s charity?“

    Special pleading. The greatest tool of the administrative state.

    Curle

    June 15, 2018 at EDT pm

  8. “Furthermore, philanthropy is something that rich people do for a hobby,”

    Actually, local governments and others have encouraged the growth of non-profits as places to keep professional political operatives employed during changes in government so they have a cohort ready to take over following a change back. They spend their non-profit time spreading thinly disguised political messages. One race hustling Obama outfit is trying mightily to get the permanent-Army in the Civil service of my municipality to sneak money to them for racism training exercises in the budget. These exercises are pure politics -as-morality endeavors.

    Curle

    June 15, 2018 at EDT pm

  9. We also need to end the property tax breaks for synagogues, churches, mosques, etc.

    Logik

    June 15, 2018 at EDT pm

  10. The Clintons at least were subtle about shady business in the CGI. I looked at the 990 once and the gist I picked up is that Even though Bill didn’t draw a salary, almost all the family’s living expenses were paid for by it. For example, huge budget for furniture and Bill has a home office…

    Trump’s foundation is an absolute mess. It’s transparently a pass through organization for paying people off.

    Aristippus

    June 15, 2018 at EDT pm

  11. Ot/ -I live in the United States and Apple has added to my iPhone calendar a notice that today is some kind of obscure, to me, Muslim holiday. How many Trump votes is Apple securing by engaging in such cultural nonsense?

    Curle

    June 15, 2018 at EDT pm

  12. “Why isn’t anyone investigating Clinton’s charity? ”

    Oh come on. Steve Bannon paid a journalist to write the Clinton Cash book. Most big MSM organization were given advance copies and they assigned reporters to chase down the charges in the book. None of those investigations actually turned up any wrong doing.

    The FBI also got into the act and started an investigation of possible bribery through the Clinton Foundation, but that investigation turned up nothing too. Unlike the email scandal, there was no public announcement that the FBI found nothing, but the FBI felt compelled to leak the information to some journalist that they had investigated those charges.

    The Clinton Cash book was just a political hit job. The author admitted he found no actual evidence that Hillary Clinton had done anything wrong. It is clear that some donors to the Clinton Foundation did so to get access to the Clintons, but the US Supreme Court says politicians selling access is not illegal. Every member of Congress does it all the time. Most of them are accepting money to their campaign committees in return for access. The Clintons set up a charity and used the money to do some actual charity work.

    Trump was running a scam charity that he used as a private piggy bank.

    MikeCA

    June 15, 2018 at EDT pm

    • You must hate that Trump is winning just like he said he would. The economy is great, we have peace with North Korea, everything is great.

      Lion of the Blogosphere

      June 15, 2018 at EDT pm

    • MikeCA probably also believes that Obama makes $400,000 per speech because he has interesting ideas or Netflix pays him 50mm for his entertainment experience. Or Mueller made millions in the private sector for his legal mind. Of course the donations to the Clintons were bribes and payments for access.

      Stilicho

      June 15, 2018 at EDT pm

  13. The question is how to punish bullshit fraud organizations like the Clinton Foundation while not punishing genuine charities.

    Tarl

    June 15, 2018 at EDT pm

  14. I enjoy libraries and museums too much to agree with this. Catholic schools often receive huge charitable donations which in one way or another has probably helped my kids. Interestingly some of the biggest donors to catholic schools are jewish.

    It’s a nice thing to give money and other assistance, even if your motives are selfish. As I often tell my daughter, if someone saves your life are you going to care if their motives are selfish or altruistic?

    toomanymice

    June 15, 2018 at EDT pm

    • There are lots of good things you can do and you don’t get money back from Uncle Sam for doing it. The purpose of taxes should be to raise money and not to determine what activities are “good” and which are “bad.” Don’t be a soccer mom.

      Lion of the Blogosphere

      June 15, 2018 at EDT pm

      • The Lion is getting hardcore—“libtard,” “don’t be a soccer mom.” Rough day?

        Gozo

        June 15, 2018 at EDT pm

      • I’ll stop being a soccer mom when you stop being a pessimistic atheist. My kids have the anti-sports gene so I’m probably better categorized as an anti-soccer soccer mom.

        toomanymice

        June 15, 2018 at EDT pm

      • The purpose of taxes should be to raise money and not to determine what activities are “good” and which are “bad.”

        Taxes and spending are all about that.

        Magnavox

        June 15, 2018 at EDT pm

    • “Interestingly some of the biggest donors to catholic schools are jewish.”

      https://www.ncronline.org/blogs/ncr-today/jewish-benefactors-some-catholic-schools-biggest-donors

      Reading between the lines, it seems their donations and involvement are less about helping catholics than helping NAMs. I also noticed they weren’t donating money to help send NAMs to jewish schools.

      destructure

      June 15, 2018 at EDT pm

  15. The current system is a way of regulating what the super-rich do with their money, and encourage them to do something worthwhile.

    Normally, people can do whatever they want with their money. Is that what you want? It could generate some political resentment of the rich. You want to abolish inheritance tax also?

    Roger

    June 15, 2018 at EDT pm

  16. “Why isn’t anyone investigating Clinton’s charity?“

    The FBI apparently has an open investigation on the Clinton Foundation:

    http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/367541-fbi-launches-new-clinton-foundation-investigation

    Combined with the IRS investigation, this all may end up going somewhere.

    Mike Street Station

    June 16, 2018 at EDT am

  17. I see Lion’s point. Plus all this far-left converging of NPO’s I’m reading about. But government regulation and tax laws create these problems in the first place.

    Libertarian view: Taxation is theft. Create NPO type endowments to fund the government services so they’re just another charity, fund basic income, etc. Most especially family-run small NPO’s are run by philosopher kings compared to what’s in many government regulatory agencies anxious to plunder them.

    Robert

    June 16, 2018 at EDT am

  18. BTW, the far-left has a big push on worldwide to destroy the third market sector of voluntary/volunteer groups like NPO’s. They’re being shown up to much by the competition. They’re a dying snake that can still bite.

    Robert

    June 16, 2018 at EDT am

  19. I have a bunch of problems with the not-for-profit sector, religious or otherwise. Just as an example, look at MADD. It started out with a praiseworthy premise: make drunk driving socially unacceptable, and they succeeded. DUI is no longer a middle class, I-was-just-unlucky-to-have-been caught crime, it’s now largely the province of losers and illegal aliens. But in recent years, even MADD’s founder has quit the organization as it has lurched off the rails into advocating neo-prohibitionism. The point is, that once an organization has an infrastructure and is generating cash flows and comfy jobs for its staff, the cash and jobs become the entire raison d’etre.

    I’m also uncomfortable with the idea that churches, synagogues, and other places of worship are exempt from property taxes and most, if not all income taxes. In another day and time, when religious organizations strove to stay out of politics, above the fray, it was an idea few took issue with. But since the late 60s, and especially in the last 25 years the Catholic church, most mainline protestant denominations, and even evangelical churches have gone all-in with the cultural Marxist agenda, from militant feminism to Gaia worship to open borders to “free” this and “free” that. LA’s former archbishop, Roger Mahony, flatly stated he would defy state and federal law to protect illegals, yet his church and its associated non-profits like Catholic Charities enjoy generous tax breaks and receive hundreds of millions if not billions of dollars every year from the government to warehouse and feed “refugees.” It’s not right.

    Sgt. Joe Friday

    June 16, 2018 at EDT pm

  20. IMO, the only legit charitable giving possibly to hospitals who aid children or do serious medical research.

    As for charity to the “poor” that’s about as helpful as welfare. I’d rather give money to working people than the “poor.”

    fakeemail

    June 17, 2018 at EDT am

  21. The exemptions have let Uncle Sam take control of formerly religious institutions. It’s a huge deal. Mother Church has been politically eviscerated by these exemptions, with their requirements to avoid “political” speech. The process goes back to FDR and Father Coughlin.

    The tax breaks critically need to be removed so the Churches can again exert righteous political force.

    bobbybobbob

    June 17, 2018 at EDT pm

  22. Bill Clinton has taken tax deductions for donating his used underwear.

    WaPo, 12/28/93 – BILL CLINTON’S GREAT SKIVVIES GIVE-AWAY

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/lifestyle/1993/12/28/bill-clintons-great-skivvies-give-away/0dac853d-cf3d-4faf-8104-bcf124bd93b4/?utm_term=.39c8bf9b5ac1

    Clinton, on the other hand, has valued his underwear as high as $2 a pair. And a pair of long underwear, per Clinton on his 1988 return, is worth $15.

    A typically extensive document — which apparently Clinton wrote out in his own hand for the tax return filed for 1986, when he was serving his third term as governor of Arkansas — is titled “Salvation Army 12/27” and lists items numbered 1 through 17, for which Clinton took a deduction of $555.

    Item No. 1 is “Gabardine Suit=Ripped pants — $75.” No. 8 is “Brown Sportscoat — 100.” No. 10 is “6 pr. socks — 9.” And No. 12 is “3 pr. underwear — 6.”

    But itemized 1988 deductions that appear to be written in Hillary Clinton’s hand — for clothes given to Dorcas House, a Little Rock shelter for battered women and their children — are far less extravagantly priced. A striped cotton dress is $2, gloves $1, and 5 “long warm pajamas” belonging to Chelsea are valued at $1 a pair.

    Those prices are seemingly on a different planet from Clinton’s “Blue suit-wool — 100” and “Green sweater — 25” on their 1987 joint return, or his tan jacket — listed as given to the rescue mission on the 1984 return — that he appears to have appraised initially at $30, a figure he seems to have crossed out and raised to $50.

    E. Rekshun

    June 18, 2018 at EDT pm


Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: