Elder Oaks At Finance Committee Hearing On Charitable Deductions

[Matthew J. Tandy]

A friend of mine posted this on facebook. One of the best six minutes you'll ever watch of anything from a congressional finance committee.;-)

Lest this just be link posting...

In essence, he is making the case that charitable deductions and their future are more than just economic or political matters, but are about the very future and nature of America. I agree with him. I also agree with his statement about personal income between 4:30 and 5:10, which I found interesting he would say given certain assertions recently by some about the role of government and taxation. Do you agree with his overarching argument? Would the loss of charitable deductions have a major impact on America?

[cinepro]

A friend of mine posted this on facebook. One of the best six minutes you'll ever watch of anything from a congressional finance committee.;-)

Lest this just be link posting...

In essence, he is making the case that charitable deductions and their future are more than just economic or political matters, but are about the very future and nature of America. I agree with him. I also agree with his statement about personal income between 4:30 and 5:10, which I found interesting he would say given certain assertions recently by some about the role of government and taxation. Do you agree with his overarching argument? Would the loss of charitable deductions have a major impact on America?

I don't know about America, but I suspect the loss of tax-deductible tithing would have a major impact on the Church.

[Hamba Tuhan]

I don't know about America, but I suspect the loss of tax-deductible tithing would have a major impact on the Church.

Three or four years ago, the tax office in the nation where I reside revised its policy on LDS tithing, no longer extending a 100% deduction but only a fraction thereof. (They based this decision on their assessment that only a fraction of tithing is used for actual charitable purposes, the rest for the operation of the Church.) According to our stake clerk, the impact on tithing contributions in our stake was absolutely zero. I'm not surprised.

[Mariner]

Three or four years ago, the tax office in the nation where I reside revised its policy on LDS tithing, no longer extending a 100% deduction but only a fraction thereof. (They based this decision on their assessment that only a fraction of tithing is used for actual charitable purposes, the rest for the operation of the Church.) According to our stake clerk, the impact on tithing contributions in our stake was absolutely zero. I'm not surprised.

Allowing a tax deduction for donations to religious organizations that is proportional to that amount given to charity by that organization seems like an excellent idea for all concerned. It would promote true charitable giving and would require churches to make full disclosure of their finances like any other business.

[Mark Beesley]

I don't know about America, but I suspect the loss of tax-deductible tithing would have a major impact on the Church.

I can't speak for others, but I pay tithing out of a sense of duty, not because I can deduct it. When I was younger and did not itemize, I still paid tithing.

[Matthew J. Tandy]

Watch the video if you haven't yet. Elder Oaks' argument is a lot more complex...

[thesometimesaint]

Matthew:

I watched the whole clip. I agree with his basic argument. However I see a need for governmental AND private actions to need.

[LeSellers]

I agree with his basic argument. However I see a need for governmental AND private actions to need.

And I only the need for private acts, since government is, by its very nature, coercive and destructive. It serves itself first, and does so by appearing to serve others, but doing so by making them dependent of its largesse.That's not what Christ had in mind.

Lehi

[cdowis]

Allowing a tax deduction for donations to religious organizations that is proportional to that amount given to charity by that organization seems like an excellent idea for all concerned. It would promote true charitable giving and would require churches to make full disclosure of their finances like any other business.

OK, and who will decide what is "charitable". Do you want someone in Washington deciding what activities of the church is charitable and which are not? For example, the scout program. Since the BSA is not "gay friendly", it is not recognized as a charitable activity Perhaps we will have to separate our charity depending on whether it is for a member of the church and those outside the church.

As one of our Founding Fathers said, "The power to tax is the power to destroy" or control. I suspect that the Congress and the President can find those willing to make those decisions. It would be power beyond the imagination to control such decisions.

Yeah, a really great idea.

And where we spend our money is none of your beeswax. BTW, only publically owned companies need to disclose their finances, not private businesses. The latter only have to file tax forms to the IRS.

Edited October 21, 2011 by cdowis

[LeSellers]

Allowing a tax deduction for donations to religious organizations that is proportional to that amount given to charity by that organization seems like an excellent idea for all concerned. It would promote true charitable giving and would require churches to make full disclosure of their finances like any other business.

It would also miss the "Good Samaritan Effect", to which Elder Oaks alluded.

Churches don't merely give money from their coffers, they create an environment wherein their members see voluntary efforts, outside the formal structure of the church to which they belong, as part of their calling as human beings.

The 42,000 man-days Elder Oaks spoke of in the aftermath of Katrina are but a tiny fraction of this Good Samaritan Effect.

Furthermore, expenditures from churches and other private organizations are typically more effective than government doles. It's only in part because bureaucrats are more highly paid than private charity workers, including church employees (even when they're not unpaid volunteers, as were the Saints serving in Louisiana and Mississippi), it's because private charities don't have the idiotic internal regulations that inhibit effective use of governmental resources. They still have to deal with idiotic governmental regulations, of course, but that's a completely different story.

Assuming we're stuck with a tax code like the one we have in USmerica, I 'd propose a tax credit, not merely an deduction, for charitable contributions because private charity is so much more effective.One "private dollar" is worth at least 150% of a "government dollar" confiscated from private hands.

Lehi

Edited October 21, 2011 by LeSellers

[cdowis]

Think of the idiocy of taxing charitable contributions. We give up that tax money to the government to subsidize such "charitable" organizations as Planned Parenthood. The government is now in the role of deciding where the money goes instead of the individual.

"Let's see == Planned Parenthood, hundreds of millions of dollars. Boy Scouts , zippo."

Politicians will be making the decision where that money goes instead of ourselves. The government takes the money away from us to give to the politician's favorite charity.

[thesometimesaint]

Lehi:

Do you produce all your own electricity. Its production and regulation(synusoidal, pulsating current) is by a governmental body.

The very fact that you are benefiting and using a governmental research program(DARPA gave us the Internet) in the use your computer gives lie to your statement. The very fact that you use the roads, bridges, highways, and byways provided the governmental contracts gives lie to your statement.

[LeSellers]

Do you produce all your own electricity. Its production and regulation(synusoidal, pulsating current) is by a governmental body.

Working on it.

I'll have an off-the-grid PV system up by spring. (Of course, government is making it a lot harder than it has to be.)

The very fact that you are benefiting and using a governmental research program(DARPA gave us the Internet) in the use your computer gives lie to your statement. The very fact that you use the roads, bridges, highways, and byways provided the governmental contracts gives lie to your statement.

You are reading a lot more into my "statement" than I wrote. Roads, highways, bridges, etc., are supposed to be financed by users fees, paid at the pump. Of course the Highways Trust Funds (just like the antiSocial inSecurity trust funds) are regularly pilfered for other programs, demonstrating that we cannot trust government, especially with funds. And that's what George Washington meant when he said that government is like fire: a dangerous servant and a fearful master.

Lehi

Edited October 21, 2011 by LeSellers

[LeSellers]

[Electricity's] production and regulation(synusoidal, pulsating current) is by a governmental body.

CFR. Because private entities decided all of this long before government got involved.

Lehi

Edited October 21, 2011 by LeSellers

[thesometimesaint]

cdowis:

Let me introduce you to Oliver Wendall Holmes who said "Taxes are the price we pay for a civilized society".

Or how about Adam Smith who said: "the expense of defending the society, and that of supporting the dignity of the chief magistrate, are both laid out for the general benefit of the whole society. It is reasonable, therefore, that they should be defrayed by the general contribution of the whole society, all the different members contributing, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities."

"When the toll upon carriages of luxury, upon coaches, post-chaises, &c. is made somewhat higher in proportion to their weight, than upon carriages of necessary use, such as carts, waggons, &c. the indolence and vanity of the rich is made to contribute in a very easy manner to the relief of the poor, by rendering cheaper the transportation of heavy goods to all the different parts of the country".

[LeSellers]

cdowis:

Let me introduce you to Oliver Wendall Holmes who said "Taxes are the price we pay for a civilized society".

Or how about Adam Smith who said: "the expense of defending the society, and that of supporting the dignity of the chief magistrate, are both laid out for the general benefit of the whole society. It is reasonable, therefore, that they should be defrayed by the general contribution of the whole society, all the different members contributing, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities."

"When the toll upon carriages of luxury, upon coaches, post-chaises, &c. is made somewhat higher in proportion to their weight, than upon carriages of necessary use, such as carts, waggons, &c. the indolence and vanity of the rich is made to contribute in a very easy manner to the relief of the poor, by rendering cheaper the transportation of heavy goods to all the different parts of the country".

We're not talking about "taxes", per se, we're talking about charitable contributions.

Please stay on topic. You have introduced electricity, highways and bridges, now "civilized society".

Government is not a good steward of money, and it is a terrible provider of assistance to those in need. Private charity is the best path to the end of getting people into a position where they do not need any more charity. The best thing government could do to help the poor and the needy is to encourage more private charitable work, not make things more difficult than they already are.

Lehi

Edited October 21, 2011 by LeSellers

[thesometimesaint]

Lehi:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utility_frequency

[LeSellers]

http://en.wikipedia....ility_frequency

Your source does not make your case.

Westinghouse Electric decided to standardize on a lower frequency to permit operation of both electric lighting and induction motors on the same generating system. Although 50 Hz was suitable for both, in 1890 Westinghouse considered that existing arc-lighting equipment operated slightly better on 60 Hz, and so that frequency was chosen. The operation of Tesla's induction motor required a lower frequency than the 133 Hz common for lighting systems in 1890. In 1893 General Electric Corporation, which was affiliated with AEG in Germany, built a generating project at Mill Creek, California using 50 Hz, but changed to 60 Hz a year later to maintain market share with the Westinghouse standard.

...

In the United States, the Southern California Edison company had standardized on 50 Hz. Much of Southern California operated on 50 Hz and did not completely change frequency of their generators and customer equipment to 60 Hz until around 1948. Some projects by the Au Sable Electric Company used 30 Hz at transmission voltages up to 110,000 volts in 1914

It was competitive and cooperative decisions by various companies, not any imposition of "a government body" that got us sinusoidal, alternating current at 60Hz (or 50Hz), and 110V (or 220V) around the world.Eventually government stuck its nose in an "standardized" it all, but the decision was made earlier.

And, one may ask, what does this have to do with charitable contributions?

Lehi

Edited October 21, 2011 by LeSellers

[Cobalt-70]

And I only the need for private acts, since government is, by its very nature, coercive and destructive. It serves itself first, and does so by appearing to serve others, but doing so by making them dependent of its largesse.That's not what Christ had in mind.

I don't think Christ had in mind some sort of everybody out for himself, "invisible hand" libertarianism, either. Jesus was quite happy with "rendering unto Caesar," and he hung out with tax collectors. If a Roman soldier asked him to carry his armor for a mile, Jesus was happy to go two miles, without complaint. He told people to sell all their possessions and give them to the poor, and said that the rich were almost certainly damned. Plus, the early Christians under Peter (and the people described at various times in the Book of Mormon) held all their property in common, which is an even more communist arrangement than was the United Order in Kirtland. If you abolish private property, you certainly don't have to worry about taxes.

[cinepro]

Three or four years ago, the tax office in the nation where I reside revised its policy on LDS tithing, no longer extending a 100% deduction but only a fraction thereof. (They based this decision on their assessment that only a fraction of tithing is used for actual charitable purposes, the rest for the operation of the Church.) According to our stake clerk, the impact on tithing contributions in our stake was absolutely zero. I'm not surprised.

That's very interesting. Hopefully we'll never find out how that would work in the USA, but it's good to know that might be the case.

[thesometimesaint]

Lehi:

The Social Security Administration has a 1-1&1/2% overhead, and no profit margin. Your vaunted private(Corporate) 401k has a fee schedule of 28% . Social Security has never lost a dime, and has a 1-2 Trillion dollar surplus. In the last 3-4 years the average 401k has lost anywhere from 1/3 to 2/3 of its value. So much for how much more efficient the p[rivate sector is.

Now let's take a look at charity. While some charities do good work with minimal overhead charges, on average the rate is close to 30% and in some notable cases is 100% or more. Governmental overhead is 0% beyond that which is used to pay the people who do the actual work. The guy delivering the lumber to rebuild your home gets paid.

That is good that you produce your own electricity. I'm sure your computer, modem, TV, and most other electronic equipment appreciates the fact that you supply it electricity that it runs best on(In the US that is 60 cycles/second, and is the correct synusoidal wave form). The fact remains that if you hook up to the grid, you have a legal obligation to meet frequency and wave form requirements. Also if your local grid goes down you have a legal and ethical obligation to not put your electricity into the grid.

[thesometimesaint]

Lehi:

Electricity was first regulated in England in 1904.

Edited October 21, 2011 by thesometimesaint

[LeSellers]

I don't think Christ had in mind some sort of everybody out for himself, "invisible hand" libertarianism, either. Jesus was quite happy with "rendering unto Caesar," and he hung out with tax collectors.

At this point an governmental "charity" in the Roman Empire, if it existed at all, was negligible. "Panem et circenses" was not a factor in Rome until the lI or later.

Any appeal to Caesar on this matter is unwarranted, and unjustifiable.

He told people to sell all their possessions and give them to the poor,.

Private charity! What Christ and the prophets have always advocated and commanded. There is not a single instance of a prophet of God's ever having commanded us to "give" to the government (via forced "donations") so it can take care of our mandate to care for the poor and the needy.

Plus, the early Christians under Peter (and the people described at various times in the Book of Mormon) held all their property in common, which is an even more communist arrangement than was the United Order in Kirtland. If you abolish private property, you certainly don't have to worry about taxes.

I doubt that. Can you show that the early "communist" Christians were not taxed? I rather doubt it was the case.

Abolishing private property has only resulted in starvation (à la North Korea, Cuba, and Albania, not to mention the Soviet Union). Taxes may be the price of civilized society (a proposition with which I disagree vehemently), but too much civilization gets us Rome in the V, ripe for "Vandalization".

Lehi

Edited October 21, 2011 by LeSellers

[LeSellers]

Electricity was first regulated in England in 1904.

And this has what, exactly, to do with charitable deductions?

They regulated frequency and voltage?

BTW, the sinusoidal nature of AC is a direct result of the definition of a circle and the trigonometric sine function, not by the machinations of "a government body".

Lehi

Edited October 21, 2011 by LeSellers

[cinepro]

Lehi:

The Social Security Administration has a 1-1&1/2% overhead, and no profit margin. Your vaunted private(Corporate) 401k has a fee schedule of 28% . Social Security has never lost a dime, and has a 1-2 Trillion dollar surplus. In the last 3-4 years the average 401k has lost anywhere from 1/3 to 2/3 of its value. So much for how much more efficient the p[rivate sector is.

One day, we're going to open the social security "briefcase" and this is what's going to happen:

"Mr. Samsonite" = social security beneficiaries

Lloyd = US government

IOUs = Treasury IOUs ("That's as good as money, sir")