Elder Oaks At Finance Committee Hearing On Charitable Deductions

[Deborah]

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.

Please do not repeat the mistaken argument that the law of consecration as practiced by the early saints is in any way related to the practice of communism which is a totally coercive and destructive system both to the giver and receiver. It is Satan's way of deceiving by imitating what is a practice done out of pure love and being guided by the Spirit.

As to the OP I do think that many charitable contributions would be affected but not necessarily tithing as that is a commandment of God. However, Fast offerings and contributions to other organizations would likely be greatly affected. It is a known fact that those who give the most in charitable contributions are the so-called selfish conservatives because they believe that it is a personal responsibility and not a faceless government responsibility.

Edited October 21, 2011 by Deborah

[Cobalt-70]

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.

Yes he did. Holding a coin, he said "Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's." If he were alive to day, he would have held a dollar bill and said, "Render unto the United States Government that which is the United States Government's." In other words, the government prints our money in the first place, so why should we complain if the government asks for some of it back?

[Cobalt-70]

Please do not repeat the mistaken argument that the law of consecration as practiced by the early saints is in any way related to the practice of communism which is a totally coercive and destructive system both to the giver and receiver. It is Satan's way of deceiving by imitating what is a practice done out of pure love and being guided by the Spirit.

You are referring to Communism with a capital "C." I am referring to generic communism with a lower-case "c." They are quite different. The United Order is communist, but certainly not Communist. Technically, the United Order was anarchist, which is still Leftism, but it is a voluntary and cooperative Leftism. The early Christian and Book of Mormon societies were communistic in that they did away with private property, even if it was on a voluntary basis. They were living the perfect Marxist dream of a voluntary, classless, and democratic communism.

[Deborah]

Yes he did. Holding a coin, he said "Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's." If he were alive to day, he would have held a dollar bill and said, "Render unto the United States Government that which is the United States Government's." In other words, the government prints our money in the first place, so why should we complain if the government asks for some of it back?

This is such a fallacy. The government prints money as a simpler means of trade, rather than using barter or things such as gold, which has intrinsic value. The money I have in my pocket was earned by me, not given to me by the government. The paper is only the means used to simplify transactions.

The taxes collected by the Romans were for the running of government, which no one is denying is not necessary. What is at issue here are charitable contributions, which by definition and their nature are given out of one's heart and generosity, not out of some requirement of law.

[Cobalt-70]

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".

Abolishing private property also got the City of Enoch taken into heaven. Plus, the Native Americans did pretty well without private property, as did the pilgrims of the Plymouth Colony. They may have periodically starved, but likely more of them would have starved if they were all money-grubbing Objectivists.

[Deborah]

You are referring to Communism with a capital "C." I am referring to generic communism with a lower-case "c." They are quite different. The United Order is communist, but certainly not Communist. Technically, the United Order was anarchist, which is still Leftism, but it is a voluntary and cooperative Leftism. The early Christian and Book of Mormon societies were communistic in that they did away with private property, even if it was on a voluntary basis. They were living the perfect Marxist dream of a voluntary, classless, and democratic communism.

Foderol.

[Hestia]

Please keep topic on charitable contributions, not on government programs or politics or it will be short-lived.

[Skylla]

Keep the thread focused on Elder Oaks' statement please.

Skylla

[LeSellers]

Yes he did. Holding a coin, he said "Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's." If he were alive to day, he would have held a dollar bill and said, "Render unto the United States Government that which is the United States Government's." In other words, the government prints our money in the first place, so why should we complain if the government asks for some of it back?

Technically, the Federal Reserve prints "our" "money" (they're actually "notes": instruments of debt). Well, the Bureau of Engraving "prints" them, but they are owned by the Federal Reserve. Notice they're signed by the Secretary of the Treasury and the Treasurer of the United States to confirm the debt. But money is only a representation of wealth, and not a very good one at that, when it, in and of itself, has no intrinsic value.

Your point, however, is still wrong as it pertains to the topic at hand: charitable deductions (specifically to churches) against against taxable income. Government is a lousy provider of charity (even if we expand "charity" to include the government dole, which is unjustified). Private charities outperform government "charity" for a number of reasons, not least of which is that private charity does not make mistakes on the scale of governmental ones. For instance, a private charity would not have purchased thousands of trailers to house Katrina survivors: at worst a few hundred. The waste of that debacle alone is staggering. Private charities do not have the "turning radius" of government. When they decide to change direction, it happens very quickly, government cannot do that.

No government employee (I carefully avoided "worker" for obvious reasons) shows up unpaid. Volunteers from churches and other private charities do so all the time. Finally, for this installment, a private charity can target a very specific segment of the "poor" or "needy" to help. So donor can choose which segment they wish to assist. Government is a giant grab bag, and all decisions are political. Even if we had the choice (please don't laugh too hard, it may not be good for your respiratory system)of how much to "give", we could not decide who gets "our" "help", as we can in the private world.

Finally, if there was no "welfare system" in the Rome under which Jesus lived, claiming that He commanded us to give to the state so the state could support the "poor" and the "needy" is a non sequitor. Jesus never said, just as I claimed earlier, that we should support government charity—He always commanded us to do private alms.

Lehi

[LeSellers]

Abolishing private property also got the City of Enoch taken into heaven. Plus, the Native Americans did pretty well without private property, as did the pilgrims of the Plymouth Colony. They may have periodically starved, but likely more of them would have starved if they were all money-grubbing Objectivists.

When Enoch and his city were translated, they were not following a governmental program of abolished property. It was all voluntary.

Lehi

[Mansquatch]

Yes he did. Holding a coin, he said "Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's." If he were alive to day, he would have held a dollar bill and said, "Render unto the United States Government that which is the United States Government's."

Wow, so Jesus wants the government to "take care of our mandate to care for the poor and the needy". Sweet, I didn't want to have to deal with those icky, needy people anyway.

In other words, the government prints our money in the first place, so why should we complain if the government asks for some of it back?

Quote: "By that reasoning the personal income we think is ours is really the government’s because of its choice not to take it away by taxation."

Do you have a problem with Elder Oaks' respect for private property and it's importance when it comes to true charity and giving?

Edited October 21, 2011 by Mansquatch

[Cobalt-70]

This is such a fallacy. The government prints money as a simpler means of trade, rather than using barter or things such as gold, which has intrinsic value. The money I have in my pocket was earned by me, not given to me by the government. The paper is only the means used to simplify transactions.

Are you saying Jesus taught with a fallacy? The currency of the Roman Empire was just as much currency as the U.S. dollar.

[Cobalt-70]

Wow, so Jesus wants the government to "take care of our mandate to care for the poor and the needy". Sweet, I didn't want to have to deal with those icky, needy people anyway.

Quote: "By that reasoning the personal income we think is ours is really the government’s because of its choice not to take it away by taxation."

Do you have a problem with Elder Oaks' respect for private property and it's importance when it comes to true charity and giving?

You should not be thinking about charity as a substitute for government, or vice versa. You can't replace one with the other. Charity will exist whether or not there is a government. The economic arm of modern democratic government is about social justice and a safety net--that is, (1) make sure that people are rewarded in proportion to their true economic contribution to, or drain on, society (accounting for all externalities), and (2) make sure that people don't fall through the cracks relating to imperfections in the market system. Leave charity to the churches.

Edited October 21, 2011 by Cobalt-70

[LeSellers]

the Native Americans did pretty well without private property, as did the pilgrims of the Plymouth Colony. They may have periodically starved, but likely more of them would have starved if they were all money-grubbing Objectivists.

Not all Indians rejected private property, and those who had it were the most prosperous.

The Plymouth Plantation did not recover from the devastation of communism until they instituted private property. Governor Bradford explicitly noted that when each man was responsible for his own welfare, only then was there food enough to survive. It was not a drought that caused their poverty, but the lack of industry—brought on by the feeling among the strong and able that they were supporting others who did not do anything like enough to support themselves.

In these hard & difficulte beginings they found some discontents & murmurings arise amongst some, and mutinous speeches & carriags in other; but they were soone quelled & overcome by ye wisdome, patience, and just & equall carrage of things by ye Govr and better part, wch clave faithfully togeather in ye maine. But that which was most sadd & lamentable was, that in 2. or 3. moneths time halfe of their company dyed, espetialy in Jan: & February, being ye depth of winter, and wanting houses & other comforts; being infected with ye scurvie & other diseases, which this long vioage & their inacomodate condition had brought upon them; so as ther dyed some times 2. or 3. of a day, in ye foresaid time; that of 100. & odd persons, scarce 50. remained. And of these in ye time of most distres, ther was but 6. or 7. sound persons, who, to their great comendations be it spoken, spared no pains, night nor day, but with abundance of toyle and hazard of their owne health, fetched them woode, made them fires, drest them meat, made their beads, washed their lothsome cloaths, cloathed & uncloathed them; in a word, did all ye homly & necessarie offices for them wch dainty & quesie stomacks cannot endure to hear named; and all this willingly & cherfully, without any grudging in ye least, shewing herein their true love unto their friends & bretheren. A rare example & worthy to be remembred. Two of these 7. were Mr. William Brewster, ther reverend Elder, & Myles Standish, ther Captein & military comander, unto whom my selfe, & many others, were much beholden in our low & sicke condition.

All this whille no supply was heard of, neither knew they when they might expecte any. So they begane to thinke how they might raise as much corne as they could, and obtaine a beter crope then they had done, that they might not still thus languish in miserie. At length, after much debate of things, the Govr (with the advise of the cheefest amongest them) gave way that they should set corne every man for his owne perticuler, and in that regard trust to them selves; in all other things to goe on in the generall way as before. And so assigned to every family a parcell of land, according to the proportion of their number for that end, only for present use (but made no devission for inheritance), and ranged all boys and youth under some familie. This had very good success; for it made all hands very industrious, so as much more corne was planted then other waise would have bene by any means the Gov1- or any other could use, and saved him a great deall of trouble, and gave farr better contente. The women now wente willingly into the feild, and tooke their litle-ons with them to set corne, which before would aledg weaknes, and inabilitie; whom to have compelled would have bene thought great tiranie and oppression.

The experience that was had in this commone course and condition, tried sundrie years, and that amongst godly and sober men, may well evince the vanitie of that conceite of Platos and other .ancients, applauded by some of later times; —that the taking away of propertie, and bringing in communitie into a comone wealth, would make them happy and florishing; as if they were wiser then God. For this comunitie (so farr as it was) was found to breed much confusion and discontent, and retard much imployment that would have been to their benefite and comforte. For the yong-men that were most able and fitte for labour and service did repine that they should spend their time and streingth to worke for other mens wives and children, with out any recompence. The strong, or man of parts, had no more in devission of victails and cloaths, then he that was weake and not able to doe a quarter the other could; this was thought injuestice. The aged and graver men to be ranked and equalised in labours, and victails, cloaths, etc., with the meaner and yonger sorte, thought it some indignite and disrespect unto them. And for mens wives to be commanded to doe servise for other men, as dresing their meate, washing their cloaths, etc., they deemd it a kind of slaverie, neither could many husbands well brooke it. Upon the poynte all being to have alike, and all to doe alike, they thought them selves in the like condition, and one as good as another; and so, if it did not cut of those relations that God hath set amongest men, yet it did at least much diminish and take of the mutuall respects that should be preserved amongst them. And would have bene worse if they had been men of another condition. Let none objecte this is men's corruption, and nothing to the course it selfe. I answer, seeing all men have this corruption in them, God in his wisdome saw another course fiter for them.

Government is not the answer: private charity, and especially religious charity, achieves what government cannot do. Government should, therefor, do all it can to encourage private charity, both in money and in voluntarism through churches and other organizations. The best thing it could do is recognize the value of such gifts by granting a tax credit for all such donated cash and labor.

Lehi

Edited October 21, 2011 by LeSellers

[Cobalt-70]

Government is not the answer: private charity, and especially religious charity, achieves what government cannot do. Government should, there for, do all it can to encourage private charity, both in money and in voluntarism through churches and other organizations. The best thing it could do is recognize the value of such gifts by granting a tax credit for all such donated cash and labor.

I agree that government is not the answer to the lack of charity. It is the answer to the flaws of pure capitalism. And I personally like the charitable exemption because I benefit from it. But the current tax policy, sorry to say, is a form of redistribution of wealth from the uncharitable to the charitable.

[LeSellers]

I agree that government is not the answer to the lack of charity. It is the answer to the flaws of pure capitalism. And I personally like the charitable exemption because I benefit from it. But the current tax policy, sorry to say, is a form of redistribution of wealth from the uncharitable to the charitable.

Since so many feel that the purpose of government is to redistribute wealth from one group to a preferred other, okeh, why not? Of course, statistics show that those who do private charity are overwhelmingly "conservative" and "religious", you are saying that these groups are those who benefit from the tax deduction (which ought to be a credit anyway). That's fair, since it is these people who pay for most of the government in any case.

I believe the "charitable" deserve more redistribution than the "uncharitable". Of course the only real beneficiaries are the ones who get the charity, since your "charitable " ones voluntarily impoverish themselves (so some degree) to benefit the ones they determine are needy or poor.

And, since those who benefit from private charity don't need government handouts, the government benefits, too. It can now make others dependent on it, so it can continue to stay in power. Which is what government welfare is all about anyway.

BTW, as an "answer to the flaws of pure capitalism" government is a disgusting failure. Honorable men would disavow any association with it.

Lehi, who is not a capitalist (as most people nowadays imagine it to be), but a "free marketeer".

Edited October 21, 2011 by LeSellers

[Deborah]

Are you saying Jesus taught with a fallacy? The currency of the Roman Empire was just as much currency as the U.S. dollar.

??? What is your point? It doesn't make a bit of difference in the argument that coin or dollar is in exchange for a service or labor given. Taxes are used to pay for necessary government services such as defense and infrastructure. They should not be used to support every whim of every interest group.

[Cobalt-70]

??? What is your point? It doesn't make a bit of difference in the argument that coin or dollar is in exchange for a service or labor given. Taxes are used to pay for necessary government services such as defense and infrastructure. They should not be used to support every whim of every interest group.

I'm just saying that Jesus' point was that Caesar coins the currency, so a Christian should have no problem with giving to Caesar that which he made in the first place. If that is a fallacy, then Jesus is fallacious.

[LeSellers]

If that is a fallacy, then Jesus is fallacious.

There is another option: it's your interpretation is fallacious.

Lehi

[ldsfaqs]

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.

Sure, it may not effect "Tithing" like you said, but it would most certainly effect other charitable donations in other Church programs, and for other items, as well as especially other charitable organizations. Our donating (Tithing) works differently than other religions and groups. Further, charity in the Church isn't simply Tithing, it's all kinds of other things. Are you familiar with Desert Industries, the Churches charitable arm? It would most certainly effect them.

Tithing isn't the issue, Charitable donation across many aspects and groups is.

[Cobalt-70]

Since so many feel that the purpose of government is to redistribute wealth from one group to a preferred other, okeh, why not? Of course, statistics show that those who do private charity are overwhelmingly "conservative" and "religious", you are saying that these groups are those who benefit from the tax deduction (which ought to be a credit anyway). That's fair, since it is these people who pay for most of the government in any case.

I believe the "charitable" deserve more redistribution than the "uncharitable". Of course the only real beneficiaries are the ones who get the charity, since your "charitable " ones voluntarily impoverish themselves (so some degree) to benefit the ones they determine are needy or poor.

And, since those who benefit from private charity don't need government handouts, the government benefits, too. It can now make others dependent on it, so it can continue to stay in power. Which is what government welfare is all about anyway.

BTW, as an "answer to the flaws of pure capitalism" government is a disgusting failure. Honorable men would disavow any association with it.

Lehi, who is not a capitalist (as most people nowadays imagine it to be), but a "free marketeer".

Charity, though, is not a substitute for a public safety net, or for eliminating economic externalities. Charity can put bread on your table, but it cannot get you a job. Yes, charity suffereth long and is not puffed up, etc. But charity cannot clean the air we breathe or the water we drink. It cannot prevent the rich from oppressing the poor, protect our borders, keep the streets safe, perform basic science, build highways and train tracks, reduce the cost of healthcare, raise literacy rates, or prevent limited resources from being used unsustainably.

Edited October 21, 2011 by Cobalt-70

[ldsfaqs]

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.

Stop going back to that liberal strawman lie. Government is constitutionally obligated to provide basic society needs to a degree. That's not what's being discussed here.

[Mariner]

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.

Are you aware of the amount of money that the LDS Church provides to bona fide charities each year as a percentage of gross revenues?

(If you were you would probably be embarrassed.)

Are you aware of the amount of money that flows through the religion business in the US each year?

Are you aware that something like 20% of the land that could taxed in the US has to be taken off the tax rolls because it belongs to religious organizations?

Religious organization get a financial free ride in this country that is far out of proportion to any charitable giving they do.

Why not tax them except for what they can prove to give to charity?

[Deborah]

Why not tax them except for what they can prove to give to charity?

Are you not aware that the LDS pays taxes on its lands and property that are for business purposes and not strictly charity.

[cdowis]

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".

You need to be introduced to a tutor in reading comprehension. Where exactly did I say that we should not pay taxes? You are using the antimormon habit of "summarizing" my post without actualy quoting.

Now for the reading comprehension challanged, I made it very clear that it is my view that government has no business supporting charities. That leads to politicians choosing their favorite charities at the expense of the taxpayer.

We as individuals should be the ones to select where my charitable dollars go. When the government takes my money for IT's favorite charity (Planned Parenthood was the example I gave) that is very bad policy.

Edited October 22, 2011 by cdowis