December 2014

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
  1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28 29 30 31      
Blog powered by Typepad
Member since 08/2003

« Does He Have Nicknames for Each of Them? | Main | Oh My God, The President's Black! »

March 24, 2009


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

"A: Would affect the top 1%. Says charities that say this will hurt them are just wrong"

Bet you a couple of rounds should we ever be in relative proximity, given my understanding of human nature, that this is dead wrong.

The tax deduction is a tipping point incentive for super-wealthy ppl to put money toward "good works" for posterity and altruism rather than say, meddling on a national scale. Or, if you are a Gates or a Soros, on an international scale.

The reason is that these people have already maxed out their reasonable business investments vis-a-vis their finite time as well as personal consumption and this is money to put toward non-renumerative ends. With charity on a level playing field, the money headed toward indirect political activity is going to explode.

I dunno, zen, I think you overstate the case. We're talking about trimming tax deductions, not eliminating them. Campaign contributions are not tax deductible at all. Plus, the social aspects of high-end charitable contribs cannot be dismissed that easily. If you have an appreciated piece of art, for example, you still want to contribute it to an art museum (and have all your friends know you did so) rather than sell it, pay the cap gains, and use it to promote your favorite pol.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Support This Blog

Philadelphia Bloggers