According to the links from the Scott’s post, Rob Reich’s position is that we should tax charitable donations at the exact same rates as all other spending, with an exception for under $1000/year donors getting 25% back. No more, no less.
I personally think that this is a blindingly stupid idea because it assumes that everyone who donates more than that will donate even more to compensate for the government taking a lion’s share of their donations, because he sort of got himself into a frame of mind where he sees donations as more of a privilege to change the world according to one’s wishes given to the donors, not as a lifeline for the recipients.
But nothing in the two articles about his position I read suggests anything more sinister than that misguided plan, which even makes sense on his own terms.
How you think about the idea depends a lot on the framing. As I understand, “we should tax donations” is actually “we should stop refunding/deducting donations”. “We should tax churches and charities just like other endeavors” is more direct. Honestly, I’m in favor of private (even billionaire) philanthropy, but we should tax all activity equally without carve-outs that distort decision-making, especially since the government is so bad at distinguishing useful from useless.
To the extent that the government subsidizes it (by allowing it as a tax deduction, and by failing to tax the economic activity), the government has a say in it’s use. Which I would prefer not be the case.
According to the links from the Scott’s post, Rob Reich’s position is that we should tax charitable donations at the exact same rates as all other spending, with an exception for under $1000/year donors getting 25% back. No more, no less.
I personally think that this is a blindingly stupid idea because it assumes that everyone who donates more than that will donate even more to compensate for the government taking a lion’s share of their donations, because he sort of got himself into a frame of mind where he sees donations as more of a privilege to change the world according to one’s wishes given to the donors, not as a lifeline for the recipients.
But nothing in the two articles about his position I read suggests anything more sinister than that misguided plan, which even makes sense on his own terms.
How you think about the idea depends a lot on the framing. As I understand, “we should tax donations” is actually “we should stop refunding/deducting donations”. “We should tax churches and charities just like other endeavors” is more direct. Honestly, I’m in favor of private (even billionaire) philanthropy, but we should tax all activity equally without carve-outs that distort decision-making, especially since the government is so bad at distinguishing useful from useless.
To the extent that the government subsidizes it (by allowing it as a tax deduction, and by failing to tax the economic activity), the government has a say in it’s use. Which I would prefer not be the case.