jojoc
  • jojoc
  • Herf-A-Holic Topic Starter
Wednesday, March 25, 2009 2:21:00 PM
Q&A with President Obama

Mr. President, are you — thank you. Thank you, Mr. President. Are you reconsidering your plan to cut the interest rate deduction for mortgages and for charities? And do you regret having proposed that in the first place?

No, I think it's — I think it's the right thing to do, where we've got to make some difficult choices.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

what say you. would you be less inclined to make a charitable donation if it donation no longer qualified for a tax deduction?

neopuritan
Wednesday, March 25, 2009 2:51:00 PM
I support the church regardless.

And by command.

Buckwheat
Wednesday, March 25, 2009 3:06:00 PM
I'm in favor of giving to those in need. The churches don't "generally" get any of my giving. I do actively support several deferent charities. Most have to do with specific freinds and/or family memembers that have medical problems. So I regularely give to ADA, Cancer charities, Children's health issues, environmetal concervation (mainly through hunting and fishing concervation programs - e.g. TU, etc...).
8trackdisco
Wednesday, March 25, 2009 3:11:00 PM
If you are giving simply to get a tax deduction, you are likely giving for the wrong reason. And if you stop giving now because the tax deduction isn't high enough, go someplace and die quickly and quietly.
ScottHar
Wednesday, March 25, 2009 3:14:00 PM
My church will get the same amount of money from me, tax-deduction or not.

I'll be less inclined, though, to donate certain items to local charities -- things that I might otherwise sell on eBay, on Craigslist, at a yard sale, etc. I also think a lot of charities and fundraising activities will suffer (I'm thinking of the parade of kids through the neighborhood selling candy bars, calendars, wrapping paper, etc.).

It might not translate into a big difference, but small "yes" or "no" decisions on whether to buy/give get multiplied times tens of millions of people, and there will be far fewer dollars going to charity.

Unless you count my higher taxes as "charity."

ScottHar

8trackdisco
Wednesday, March 25, 2009 3:17:00 PM
^

Make sure you report that Ebay income.

(Can you give me a heads up on when you'll be putting up the Sausage Apron for bid?)

ScottHar
Wednesday, March 25, 2009 3:20:00 PM
^I don't have to report the eBay income (the way my wife spends money qualifies me as a not-for-profit entity).

ScottHar

P.S. re 4: The "wrong" reason?

I remember in high school a teacher of mine asked who gives the "better" gift to charity: the poor woman who scrimps and saves for months and months and gives $100 because she feels so strongly about the cause? Or the cynical businesswoman who wants a write-off and hands over a check for $10,000?

I know a guy who works with the homeless here in Los Angeles who would LOVE to have a few super-wealthy folks donate millions for the "wrong" reasons (i.e. tax write-off).

DrMaddVibe
Wednesday, March 25, 2009 3:41:00 PM
I donate EVERYTHING to my church now.

I used to give considerable amounts of time and money to certain organizations.

Not anymore.

Clothes and food stuffs go to the church as well as my money.

jojoc
  • jojoc
  • Herf-A-Holic Topic Starter
Wednesday, March 25, 2009 4:03:00 PM
ScottHar hits the point well I think.

Most of the giving that I do is not tax driven, and will continue regardless. However, my company helps underwrite a golf tourny for a local charity every year. If my business (or I) can not write that off, not sure I will be able to continue supporting it.

Although I most likely will never play ball in the majors, how many $10,000 to $10,000,000 dollar checks will stop going to charity of the tax donations go away?

I have a number of clients that give substantial funds each year to their own foundation or donor advised funds. If they can not write it off, they will stop. There are a number of smaller charities in the area that are funded about 50-60% by some of these "private" charities.

teelio
Wednesday, March 25, 2009 4:08:00 PM
I understand the OP asked a question that may have been intentionally theoretical, but I feel compelled to point out that Obama did not propose doing away with deductions for charitable giving.

He simply proposed that those in the top tax bracket would receive a deduction at 28%-- the same as most middle class Americans-- rather than at a higher rate of 39%.

-Threadjack off-

neopuritan
Wednesday, March 25, 2009 4:20:00 PM
Obamas Donated Less Than 1% of Their 2000-2004 Income (Update4)

Share | Email | Print | A A A

By Ryan J. Donmoyer and Julianna Goldman

March 25 (Bloomberg) -- Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama and his wife Michelle gave $10,772 of the $1.2 million they earned from 2000 through 2004 to charities, or less than 1 percent, according to tax returns for those years released today by his campaign.

The Obamas increased the amount they gave to charity when their income rose in 2005 and 2006 after the Illinois senator published a bestselling book. The $137,622 they gave over those two years amounted to more than 5 percent of their $2.6 million income.

Bill Burton, a campaign spokesman, said the Obamas gave as much as they could afford. He also said the Obamas gave $240,000 to charity in 2007, though they have yet to make last year's tax returns public.

``As new parents who were paying off their large student loans, giving $10,000 to charity was as generous as they could be at the time,'' Burton said. The tax returns don't reflect any donations for which they didn't or couldn't claim a deduction or any volunteer work they might have performed.

The Obamas' giving pattern is consistent with that of most other Americans, said University of Georgia Professor Russell James, who has studied the issue.

His analysis of more than 56,000 survey respondents from 1995-2005 found that 90 percent of donors give 2 percent or less of their pre-tax income to charities, including their churches. Americans who earn more than $150,000 on average gave about 2.2 percent of their income.

``It's not shocking,'' James said of the Obamas' philanthropy. ``It's about par for the course for Americans.''

Pressuring Clinton

The Obamas' charitable giving history was revealed as he became the first presidential candidate to release his tax returns for the decade and called on his rival for the Democratic nomination, New York Senator Hillary Clinton, to do the same.

``Releasing tax returns is a matter of routine, and we believe that the Clinton campaign should meet that standard and meet that routine standard now,'' said Robert Gibbs, Obama's communication director.

Clinton said today at a press conference in Greensburg, Pennsylvania, that she hopes to release her tax returns ``within the next week.'' Arizona Senator John McCain, the presumed Republican nominee, hasn't released his tax returns.

Presidential candidates aren't required to release their tax returns, which by law are confidential. Most have chosen to do so since the early 1970s.

Donations to Church

In 1998, then-Vice President Al Gore was criticized for donating only $353 to charity in 1997 despite earning $197,729. Gore, who was the 2000 Democratic nominee for president, responded by pointing to a history of philanthropy, including more than $50,000 in royalties from his book, ``Earth in the Balance.''

The Obamas made their church, Trinity United Church of Christ, one of the biggest beneficiaries of their philanthropy, donating $27,500. Obama is under scrutiny for his ties to the church because of comments made by its senior pastor.

The tax returns, 103 pages for all seven years released today, show the couple didn't begin claiming an itemized deduction for donations to the church until 2005, when they donated $5,000. They gave $22,500 a year later.

Angila Faison, a spokeswoman for the church, said it encourages its members to give 10 percent of their income to the church based on biblical instructions.

Little in Savings

The family's donations to all recipients totaled $2,350 in 2000, $1,470 in 2001, $1,050 in 2002, $3,400 in 2003, and $2,500 in 2004. They also paid federal taxes totaling $311,044 during the same period on their $1.2 million of income.

The Obamas' tax returns also show they had little in savings during the same period. They reported no dividends or capital gains over the five years and reported $33 in taxable interest, all of which was received in 2002.

Michelle Obama earned $12,000 in 2005 and $51,200 for serving as a director at Treehouse Foods Inc., a supplier for Wal-Mart Stores Inc. The couple earned $2,072 in 2005 from selling 3,400 shares in Avi Biopharma Inc., a Portland, Oregon- based drug company that was working on a treatment for avian flu.

They claimed a loss of $15,208 on the sale of 2,500 shares of Skyterra Communications Inc., a Reston, Virginia-based satellite communications company. The company's major investors included four friends and donors who raised more than $150,000 for his campaign committees, the New York Times reported a year ago.

Their biggest gift in 2005 and 2006 combined was $31,000 to Atlanta-based CARE, an organization fighting global poverty.

The Obamas also gave $13,107 to the Congressional Black Caucus in 2006 as well as $5,000 to the Muntu Dance Theatre, where Michelle Obama serves on a capital campaign committee with Bob Nash, a deputy campaign manager for Clinton.

To contact the reporters on this story: Ryan J. Donmoyer at e-mail [email protected]; Julianna Goldman at [email protected]

Last Updated: March 25, 2008 18:58 EDT

Guess it won't affect him very much at all....

jojoc
  • jojoc
  • Herf-A-Holic Topic Starter
Wednesday, March 25, 2009 4:35:00 PM
#10. you are correct in his proposal. I originally planned on posting Obama's full response, but it was a little to long.

#11 it was really hard for me to not include some of that info in my OP.

I like the part about not being able to afford more. 10k out of 1.2mm

I had student loans and a lot lower income (drop a zero and cut in half) and somehow managed to give more than they did? not bragging, just a matter of priorities.

MACS
Wednesday, March 25, 2009 4:40:00 PM
I can't f***ing believe what our government has become. They're robbing us blind and we're ALLOWING them to do it.

I'm a little more shocked that nobody seems to care, and we're just laying down and taking it with no lube.

We need another tea party. A f***ing BIG one.

8trackdisco
Wednesday, March 25, 2009 4:42:00 PM
'..I know a guy who works with the homeless here in Los Angeles who would LOVE to have a few super-wealthy folks donate millions for the "wrong" reasons (i.e. tax write-off). ..'

------------------------------------------------

I'm not singling out the charities on this. I'm picturing the waspy multi-millionaire deciding because the tax deduction isn't enough, stops giving or gives less because of the change.

HockeyDad
Wednesday, March 25, 2009 4:42:00 PM
I sense outrage.....
8trackdisco
Wednesday, March 25, 2009 4:44:00 PM
Re 13.

Been saying it for years. NOW you come to the table?

The American spirit is dying.

andytv
Wednesday, March 25, 2009 4:46:00 PM
I belong to a Masonic Lodge, a Scottish Rite Consistory, and a Shrine Temple, which by definition means that I contribute several hundred dollars per year to various charities.

They are good charities, most notably the Shriner Hospitals, Dare, and the child ID program.

jojoc
  • jojoc
  • Herf-A-Holic Topic Starter
Wednesday, March 25, 2009 4:46:00 PM
^ can i have an espresso with that please?
ScottHar
Wednesday, March 25, 2009 5:06:00 PM
"[T]wo independent analysis centers concluded that the [Obama] Administration's proposal could decrease giving by as much as $3.87 billion to the nonprofit sector, which already is struggling to raise funds during the economic recession. Americans donate about $300 billion a year, according to Giving USA, which conducts annual surveys."

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2009/03/25/analysts_giving_by_wealthy_wou.html?wprss=44 

ScottHar

8trackdisco
Wednesday, March 25, 2009 5:25:00 PM
It won't affect the amount I give. But then again, I'm small potatoes.