| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front Economy |
| NYT Editorial: Charity Bad, Taxes Good |
| 2008-07-10 |
|
| Posted by:charger |
| #10 I'm contemplating not paying them anymore |
| Posted by: jds 2008-07-10 22:39 |
| #9 frankly, my money was taxed once, and I usually have to pay taxes on the interest received, so they can fuck off about taxing it again when I die |
| Posted by: Frank G 2008-07-10 20:56 |
| #8 But at a certain point the deduction should go away, much as we phase out certain other deductions when ordinary income is above a certain point. Schedule A deductions as a whole (where charities go) start to phase out at $150K AGI for MFJ filers. If you're subject to AMT, you lose all Schedule A deductions, except for charitable contributions and casualty / theft losses. /tax man |
| Posted by: Raj 2008-07-10 20:47 |
| #7 And if society doesn't demand some accountability from such groups, a Henry will come along to grab the wealth for his own use. |
| Posted by: lotp 2008-07-10 20:28 |
| #6 Steve, I think you are headed in the right direction. The accumulation of wealth and the power of tax exempt compound interest is building a huge reservoir of wealth in the hands of unaccountable institutions including universities. Maitland rightly pointed out that one of the unique aspects of English law was the trust. But its tax treatment has led to the creation of an unaccountable leviathan unseen since the monasteries. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2008-07-10 19:42 |
| #5 Neither you nor I have Leona's money, so we wouldn't be taxed. Ordinary people should be able to give tax-preferred money to a charity. But at a certain point the deduction should go away, much as we phase out certain other deductions when ordinary income is above a certain point. [For example, your deductions on Schedule A on a Form 1040 are phased out based on being over a certain cut-off in adjusted gross income. Same idea here.] A lot of the 'charitable' giving is a shell game to keep the money under family, or quasi-family, control for generations. Again, consider the Heinz Foundation, or the Ford Foundation. Why should my taxes be higher so that Henry's heirs can enjoy the dough? |
| Posted by: Steve White 2008-07-10 18:50 |
| #4 But I do agree on one thing as well. Giving to your dog ought to be taxed at 99%. Charities? No problem. Other people? No problem. Pets, etc? Sorry. |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2008-07-10 18:37 |
| #3 I disagree Steve. No limits on donations to charities. I plan on leaving a fairly good sum to my Church, and the local diocese Catholic Charity fund. Some of that will go to an endowment that helps pay for the "upkeep" of seminary students who are studying for the priesthood. That requires investment, management, etc. I'd rather the government not get in my way of what I want to do with my money, nor the perpetuation of contributions that are needed for future generations. But I do agree on a start to limiting the way the charities handle the money - require that it be spent properly, instead of enriching those running the charities. |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2008-07-10 18:33 |
| #2 I agree with the editorial. Charity deductions should indeed be limited at some point. And private, charitable foundations should be required to spend money and do as they say they're going to do rather than save the money in perpetuity so that their boards can have nice dinners. If the Ford Foundation, Heinz Foundation, etc. were required to disgorge their monies, people Likewise, Leona Helmsley's damned dog doesn't need 8 billion dollars, and Leona's estate shouldn't be allowed to play that game. Nope, the NYT got this one right. The charitable deduction should be limited at some dollar amount -- ordinary giving should not be affected but the wealthy should be forced to pay their share. |
| Posted by: Steve White 2008-07-10 17:13 |
| #1 Maybe the Times should worry about it's own problems... Virtually announcing to the world that the New York Times Company is in the process destroying shareholder value, investment bank Lehman Brothers is telling investors that its 12 month price target for a share of New York Times Company stock is $8 a share, down 46 percent from $15.06 at the time the report was published. Lehman sees ad revenue declining even faster than it had previously predicted, along with acceleration in the decline of earnings per share. It warns investors away from an asset play here, no doubt because the Sulzberger family is committed to keeping the company intact. So the only way the company's shares should be evaluated is on the basis of its rapidly deteriorating fundamentals. Worst of all, Lehman sees a possible dividend cut ahead. That would be painful for many members of the ruling family, and could threaten Pinch Sulzberger's control eventually. |
| Posted by: tu3031 2008-07-10 16:53 |