Kurt Ullman wrote:
- quote -

I didn't say anything to the contrary; I simply noted a change in the
law could decree it as such but that wouldn't ever occur anyway...

--

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2007) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

On Oct 3, 12:44 pm, steviekm3 <steviek2...[at]gmail.com> wrote:

- quote -

Do you mean that in addition to the tax an additional 1% should be set
aside for charities, or that the federal tax be reduced by 1% and the
spending of the amount decided by voters.

California does have this. You can in your California tax return
elect to donate money to certain charities. I'm guessing only a few
of the donations come from this route because the list is limited.

Also be aware that many 501(c)(3) charities are located in the US, but
actually do all their work abroad. So the fact we can divert tax
money abroad might be an issue. I'm OK with it because a lot of my
dividends and capital gains come from foreign countries, so I should
give back to these countries.

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2007) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

"Dick Adams" <rdadams[at]panix.com> wrote in message
news:gc65e1$132$1[at]reader1.panix.com...
- quote -


I am in favor of this idea. I believe much of the work the government is
now doing has been historically done by charities, and should be done by
charities. They are more efficient, and we can each vote which charities
are worthy. A few years ago, there was a scandal with United Way (local, I
think) and their donations dried up. Boy, did they clean up their act.
Haven't seen that happen with government, as people cannot vote with their
wallets.

As a further tie in to your comment, United Way was my first (and only)
experience with attempted forced charitable giving in the workplace. Ha,
didn't work on me, even after the intimidating chat with my new boss (I was
just out of school). He wasn't much of a debater, and it was clear he was
just playing corporate politics. I was particularly happy to see United Way
having its problems.

And, don't even get me started on United Way and the Boy Scouts . . .

========================================= MODERATOR'S COMMENT:
Let's keep focused on Taxes.

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2007) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

"Phil Marti" <prm20871[at]verizon.net> wrote
- quote -

Around nineteen percent of federal government outlays
currently go to charity already. See "social programs" on
page 86 of http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/i1040gi.pdf. With
the OP's plan, it would be easy to argue for cutting a point
from spending on these "social programs" and let taxpayers
contribute that 1% as the OP describes.

Without all the charitable giving already in place, arguably
the federal expenditures for "social programs" would have to
rise.

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2007) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

"Barry Margolin" <barmar[at]alum.mit.edu> wrote in message
news:barmar-DF6DFD.16392403102008[at]news.motzarella.org...
- quote -

perhaps they could stop doing some things, and return those things to the
charitable sector from whence they came.

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2007) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

"steviekm3" <steviek2000[at]gmail.com> wrote in message
news:dc5759f1-95e2-4114-9096-36a94d6b9ce0[at]k37g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
- quote -

I like the idea, but given that the government would prefer you not make any
charitable contributions and that they take over many of the functions
traditionally served by charities, good luck getting it introduced, let
alone passed.

Why don't you start small, and get the limitation on deduction for
charitable contributions eliminated?

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2007) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

steviekm3 <steviek2000[at]gmail.com> wrote:

- quote -

Upon reading the subject header, my inclination was that this
post was about the within-company hostile environment to
pressure employees to contribute to local mega-charity funds.

I do not see any reason for anyone other than charities being
in favor of your idea as it would mean the government channeling
its own funds to charities which are already tax-exempt as well
as increasing the opportunity for tax fraud.

Dick

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2007) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

Barry Margolin <barmar[at]alum.mit.edu> wrote:
- quote -

A very astute observation.

Dick

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2007) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

"steviekm3" wrote:

- quote -

They no doubt would. Most of these charities don't perform essential
government services, so the government would be left with less money to
provide those services it should. Thus taxes would go up.

IMO the government already does more than it should toward subsidizing
charities with the Schedule A deduction.

--
Phil Marti
Clarksburg, MD

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2007) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

In article <gc5t5u$jqg$1[at]reader1.panix.com> ,
kamlet[at]panix.com (Arthur Kamlet) wrote:

- quote -

The difference is that his suggestion would effectively turn this
portion of the charitable contribution into a tax credit, rather than a
deduction.

But how would the government finance this? The feds still need the same
amount of revenue to run the country, so they'd have to increase taxes
somewhere else to make up for the fact that 1% of income tax is going to
private charities rather than the government.

--
Barry Margolin, barmar[at]alum.mit.edu
Arlington, MA
*** PLEASE don't copy me on replies, I'll read them in the group ***

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2007) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

In article <gc5tqn$q0s$1[at]aioe.org> , dpb <none[at]non.net> wrote:


- quote -

it.

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2007) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

D. Stussy wrote:
- quote -

While true, there's nothing that would prevent tax law being changed to
make 1% directed to qualified organization and qualify as the
"charitable" deduction.

Of course the chance of such an idea passing is less than that of the
proverbial snowball.

--

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2007) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

"steviekm3" <steviek2000[at]gmail.com> wrote in message
news:dc5759f1-95e2-4114-9096-36a94d6b9ce0[at]k37g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
- quote -


It's no longer a contribution but a tax.

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2007) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

In article <dc5759f1-95e2-4114-9096-36a94d6b9ce0[at]k37g2000hsf.googlegroups.com> ,
steviekm3 <steviek2000[at]gmail.com> wrote:
- quote -


You already can designate $3 to the presidential election fund
so you can be called more often by Robocallers.


Actually, for those who itemize, up to 50% of AGI can be deducted
as charitable gifts. And every few years someone tries to add
an above the line charitable gift deduction, but that hasn't
passed. That's sort of similar to your suggestion.
--


ArtKamlet at a o l dot c o m Columbus OH K2PZH

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2007) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

I have what I think is a very good idea.

Basically what if the government said to the taxpayer that some
percentage of the income tax they pay ( say 1% for now ) must be given
to a charity of their choice rather than the 1% going to the federal
govt.

This way the taxpayer would get to choose the charity. I believe most
people would then pick efficient charities that means something
special to them. The choice of charity would be made private ( to
prevent charities from using quid pro quo to force us to give to a
particular charity ).

I think this would be an exteremly efficient way of spending tax
dollars. The problem I think is many high income earners such as
myself are very skeptical of paying higher taxes, not because we hate
paying taxes, or are greedy, uncaring individuals, it is because we
think the government wastes the tax dollars on lobbyists and that the
govt is very inefficient at using the tax dollars.

What do you people think ? Are there any countries that use such a
method currently ? How probable would it be to convince the
politicians to put this idea into play ?

Thank You.

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2007) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >