| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Culture Wars |
| Are Charities a Form of Tax? |
| 2012-08-19 |
| Or, the other way around, as the WaPo puts it... Are taxes a form of charitable donation? Republican presidential challenger Mitt Romney seemed to suggest that he might think so last week, when he responded to questions about how much he pays in taxes by suggesting that people should take into account his total contributions to the government and charities. The comment was a quick one -- a by-golly insistence that despite paying a relatively low tax rate on his vast income, the millions he has given to charity show that he's not a greedy guy. What's wrong with greedy? There are, after all, just two kinds of people - greedy ones and liars. But experts who research public attitudes on philanthropy on both sides of the political spectrum said it was an inadvertently revealing moment, a brief window into the deep philosophical differences between how liberals and conservatives view government and society. Which is why I interrupt your Sunday morning. "Taxes are a form a of charity," said Michael Tanner, a scholar at the Cato Institute who has studied philanthropy, explaining the conservative viewpoint. "If we think of the point of taxes, it's not to be punitive. We tax people because there's some use, some public good, for which they're needed." He added that one reason a conservative such as Romney aims to push tax rates down is a fundamental belief that individuals make better choices about what society needs than government does: "A conservative might say, 'I know of something in my local community where my dollars might serve a better purpose.' " My taxes don't seem to filter down to my local church, which offers on-the-spot assistance to local needy families. The flip side of the argument, the liberal side, is that the point of government is to provide a way for citizens to decide together what society needs and to get those things done. Like interstate highways, the Post Office, and - dare I say - national defense. "This is really the fundamental disagreement," said Garrett Gruener, the founder of Ask.com, who advocates higher taxes for himself and other ultra-wealthy individuals as part of the group Patriotic Millionaires for Fiscal Strength. Nothing is stopping him from writing a check to the Feds... "Democracy is not a charity. It's an enterprise of all Americans to accomplish things that we democratically decide are important," he said. "Charity is something I do on my own, and I don't expect others to have the same priorities I do." Precisely. That does not equate to more taxes being a good thing. Romney is one of the wealthiest Americans ever to represent a major party in a presidential race, and his personal finances have been under a political microscope. Democrats argue that his effective tax rate -- 13.9 percent in 2010 -- is an illustration of federal policies that favor the wealthy, making breaks available to those who can pay accountants to find them and taxing investment income at a lower rate than wages. Yeah! Just who makes those tax breaks anyways? Congress? Really? "I'm proud of the taxes I pay. My taxes, plus my charitable contributions, this year, 2011, will be about 40 percent," he said in January during a debate among Republican presidential candidates in Florida. On their 2010 tax return, Romney and his wife, Ann, reported giving nearly $3 million to charity, 13.8 percent of their total $21.7 million income. According to the Romney campaign, the couple gave more than $7 million in 2010 and 2011. That level of giving is far beyond the contributions of most Americans. According to research by the Center on Philanthropy at Indiana University and the Giving USA Foundation, Americans gave about 1.9 percent of disposable personal income to charity in each of the past three years. It is also more than given by many leading political figures. According to their 2011 tax return, President Obama and first lady Michelle Obama paid an effective tax rate of 20.5 percent and gave to charity 22 percent of their adjusted gross income of $789,674. But their rate of giving has varied significantly, as has their income. Their 2005 return, for instance, showed them giving 4.6 percent of $1.66 million. In 2003, they gave 1.4 percent of $238,00; in 2004, they contributed 1.2 percent of $207,000. The closer to the election, the more generous they become. Vice President According to a calculator developed by Peter Singer, a professor at Princeton University's Center for Human Values, ...and a thorough rabble-rouser who is frequently cited for having all the right opinions... Romney should have given at least $6 million of his income in 2010. Singer -- who says Americans at all income levels I wonder if this guy is a democrat? He seems to like telling other people what they should do. |
| Posted by:Bobby |
| #11 tw, remember that the Republicans are the party of the rich. So when a rich Republican (but I repeat myself) runs for office, his finances are a legitimate source of news information. However, when a rich Democrat (warning, oxymoron alert) runs for office, he/she obviously got rich through legitimate means (like Harry Reid?), so the press has no interest. /sarcasm, as if you couldn't tell |
| Posted by: Rambler in Virginia 2012-08-19 22:21 |
| #10 Romney is one of the wealthiest Americans ever to represent a major party in a presidential race, and his personal finances have been under a political microscope. How wealthy were the Roosevelt boys in today's dollars? Or that incorrigible tomcat John F. Kennedy? Presumably that major party bracket was meant to discount Ross Perot and Donald Trump... |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2012-08-19 21:37 |
| #9 Romney is one of the wealthiest Americans ever to represent a major party in a presidential race, and his personal finances have been under a political microscope.
Kerry and his wife are wealthier but for some strange reason this never came up when he was running ..... |
| Posted by: lotp 2012-08-19 20:36 |
| #8 Charities as a form of tax? Who came up w/this non-sense? John Roberts? I love when statists get into this territory and cite Christian charity as some sort of related concept in order to somehow shame fiscal conservatives. I don't think Jesus would want folks coerced into giving charity at the point of a Roman spear. |
| Posted by: Broadhead6 2012-08-19 20:19 |
| #7 Charity is often more effective than the bureaucrats results with the extorted wealth. Even more effective for society is just spending it on what you need. |
| Posted by: Bright Pebbles 2012-08-19 19:44 |
| #6 And make damn sure Caesar doesn't get what doesn't belong to him. |
| Posted by: tipover 2012-08-19 12:17 |
| #5 "render unto Ceaser what is Ceaser's" |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2012-08-19 11:27 |
| #4 Charities are Beggars, simple as that, Taxes are LAW, don't pay, go to jail. That's the difference. |
| Posted by: Redneck Jim 2012-08-19 11:18 |
| #3 Gimme an "Amen" to that! |
| Posted by: JohnQC 2012-08-19 10:33 |
| #2 It used to be that charities usually don't have the coercive power of government and punishment to directly extract resources from others. However, now days, too many charities use their 'special interest' standing to employ agents within government to get a resource funding stream. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2012-08-19 08:36 |
| #1 Charity is different from paying taxes. But regardless of how you look at it, conservatives are likelier to tithe and to donate to charities than liberals. |
| Posted by: American Delight 2012-08-19 08:19 |