The GOP used to tout the fact that private charities can and should take care of the needy. They’ve gotten even more heartless, and are now happy to squeeze the poor from both the governmental and private sides.
Charities quite often help the poor, disabled and sick. So, it’s entirely understandable Republicans would want to enact a disincentive to people giving to those classes.
It certainly will not affect my donations. Deductions are not an incentive; we do it because we care.
Scrooge won the Tax bill.
“This boy is Ignorance, this girl is Want. Beware them both, but most of all, beware this boy! Ebenezer:”
This is what happens when a bill is signed without an opportunity for it to be properly vetted.
As the article points out, “That means charity could become less of a middle-class enterprise and a more exclusive domain of the wealthy, who tend to give to arts and cultural institutions, research facilities and universities.” What is not stated is that much middle-class giving has historically been to social service non-profit agencies that help children and families in need, and who stand to lose the most from the tax plan at the same time the Republicans are getting ready to cut government social programs. A “two-fer” for those Republicans who want to stick it to the undeserving takers.
Of course, allowing a charitable deduction even to those who take the increased standard deduction would be an easy way to continue to encourage charitable giving by all. But, see “two-fer” above.
Exactly. The organization I support throughout the year is SF-Marin Food Bank not just with money but with donations of bags of food because hunger is hell all year. Income and deductions have nothing to do with it.
Once again we see our alt-president and Repuglican Congress destroying yet another well-established American tradition, the tradition of charitable giving. To all these Repuglicans I can only ask, using the words of Joseph Welch to Joe McCarthy, “Have you no sense of decency? . . .At long last have you no sense of decency left?”
Our country’s so called “leadership” proves itself more despicable every day.
Jeff Sessions would be fine with sending the poor to debtors’ prisons if his investments if private prison corporations he owns stock in benefit.
I think environmental groups are really going to be hit hardest. It’s still a good thing to drop off a sack of food or send 20 bucks to groups that feed the poor and sick and homeless, harder to feed a 2500 year old Redwood Tree or a Red Legged Frog from habitat destruction.
Yet another feather for the sick fuck Pruitt.
I too will continue my year-round donations to Second Harvest Food Bank. Every dollar provides 3 meals. And I don’t itemize.
Many of us feel as you do and support food banks and other charities where the need is immediate. I suspect, however, that the wealthy who have donated substantially (or at least partially) for the tax deduction may change their behavior.
My wife and I will definitely not reduce our contributions. We don’t do it for the deductions, we do it because we have more than some and its the right thing to do.
I’ll never have so much income that I’ll act as if I can’t spare at least some of it sometimes for people with less than I. What may be hit, unfortunately, will be public radio and television by would be philanthropists who in the past funded productions such as Downton Abbey. There are too many homeless people to count on the streets of San Francisco, some more ragged than others and all of them hungry. It’s my hope that some of what I donate gets to them or organizations that care for them some of the time, soup kitchens and such.
Same here. I don’t decide to donate because of taxes - when I donate, I decide if I care about the charity and it’s efforts and if they will put my donations to good use.
I don’t live in New York, California or another major SALT state though - with all of the tax hits they’re facing, it could cut their disposable income, which will impact charities.
This is going to have a huge impact. Here is a basic fact: When you contribute, you can contribute 30% more with the deduction. That means that if you give the same amount, it goes a shorter distance, after the deduction is made irrelevant.
Churches are going to be hurt. Museums, charities for the needy, PBS/NPR, animal shelters - all will get 30% less money. We go to museums, and say “We’ll get the family pass - we can deduct 30%” That is no longer the case. In fact, since our home mortgage was not enough to push us over the top of the standard deduction, we HAD to take some charitable deductions.
And please stop the sanctimonious blather about “we will continue blah blah blah”. The point of the deductability is that there is 30% less resources. That money comes from something,
Well wasn’t Pat Toomey (credited for being the driving force in writing this atrocity) “Mr. Club for Growth” for years?
Club for Growth = Scrooge for America.