Elder Oaks At Finance Committee Hearing On Charitable Deductions

[selek1]

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.

And of course, the government extorting money at gun point (and trampling over personal liberties and property rights in the process) has been absolutely, unequivocally, unquestionably resounding cure to all of these social ills.

Last time I checked, the powers-that-be were whining that all of the trillions of dollars poured down the government drain over the last sixty years weren't enough. We need to spend MORE or face the end of life as we know it..

Despite the hundreds of billions of dollars dumped into the pockets of government cronies, REAL unemployment lingers at nearly 15%, and above 20% in "chronically poor" and inner-city communities.

Despite all the money government has spent, the government-paid alarmists still insist that the air we breathe and the water we drink are still "toxic". Despite the trillions spent on prosecution, regulation, and "guaranteed-outcomes" meddling by government fat-cats, the ideologues insist that rich are still "oppressing the poor".

Despite the trillions of dollars spent by the government, our borders are still porous (with the government flat refusing to enforce the law in the name of "compassion"), our streets are still riddled with crime, and our highways, bridges, train tracks, and hospitals are all still crumbling.

When faced with the undisputable facts that their emergency spending has either accomplished nothing or gone straight into the pockets of the very "fat cats" they decry, the government apologists have only two recourses: 1) either shrug their shoulders and say "it could have been worse" or 2) demonize and misrepresent those who are demanding fiscal restraint and financial responsibility.

Government (and its apologists) are addicted to spending. And like any other addict, the more of their fix they get, the more they want, and the less they accomplish in the real world.

Edited October 22, 2011 by selek1

[Matthew J. Tandy]

Pushing this back on topic...

Do you agree or disagree with Elder Oaks statement that this is a matter about the soul of the country? Why?

Do you agree or disagree with Elder Oaks views on the relationship of government tax credits to personal right to income? Why? Does it bother you or do you think it's great that Elder Oaks said this (keeping in mind he is speaking as an individual)?

Please avoid making it further overtly political. This isn't to discuss government regulations, how much you hate or love big government etc. I know the topic can lend itself to that, but I hope that everyone can do their best. Don't let others goad you further.

[Bikeemikey]

Why should charitable spending be given either a tax exemption or a credit? If the government is focused on military and infrastructure why have any consideration for how we spend our money in the tax code. Providing tax benefits for certain private spending is the same as the government spending on charity, right?

Is the argument that the only reason the government should be out of the chatty providing industry based on effeciency?

The us government may be bad administrators in that regard, I personally have no idea, that does not make it all normative for all governments to be bad at it. Some governments actually do it very well.

Is there another reason other than efficiency as to why government should not manage charity/welfare?

Edited October 22, 2011 by Bikeemikey

[Hamba Tuhan]

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

I understand, and I wasn't arguing either for or against tax deductions for charitable contributions. I merely wanted to point out the fallacy of assuming that the Church's motivation in this matter is somehow to secure tithing receipts. Undoubtedly, there may be a handful of wealthy but faithless members in the Church who continue to pay tithing in order to buy themselves a cloak of respectability and who don't feel the financial loss too much due to the subsequent tax deduction. The overwhelming majority of Church members who tithe, however, do so in faith and will continue to do so regardless, having already put the Lord and His promises to the test.

[Deborah]

The us government may be bad administrators in that regard, I personally have no idea, that does not make it all normative for all governments to be bad at it. Some governments actually do it very well.

Is there another reason other than efficiency as to why government should not manage charity/welfare?

Is there a better reason? Local communities know the needs of the local citizens far better than an anonymous bureaucrat hundreds of miles away. Furthermore each state and community has different needs. This should all be under the auspices of local churches and communities. Many churches in addition to the LDS church help people in their areas with far more compassion and efficiency than any government program. If other countries "do it well" look at the size and structure of those countries. The U.S. is essentially a massive conglomeration of mini-countries with different ways of speaking, cultures and economic structures.

[Deborah]

Do you agree or disagree with Elder Oaks statement that this is a matter about the soul of the country? Why?

Do you agree or disagree with Elder Oaks views on the relationship of government tax credits to personal right to income? Why? Does it bother you or do you think it's great that Elder Oaks said this (keeping in mind he is speaking as an individual)?

I do agree with him. This country was founded on individual rights and liberties. One of the greatest of those rights is the right to one's own property. When one loses the right to that what rights are really left? They allow him to care for his family as he sees fit, to care for those he sees in need and to express through his own pocketbook what he finds of value.

I think most Americans are very generous when they see someone in great need. However, at the same time the rebel against the idea that someone else comes in and tells they what they can and can't do. If one has what he has earned forcefully taken from him he begins to resent not only the taker but the other person who gets what has been taken, particularly when he sees that other person waste the gift and not only not appreciate it but demand more.

[LeSellers]

Why should charitable spending be given either a tax exemption or a credit?

Because if a person receives aid from a private charity, like a church, he does not need a dole from the state.

If the government is focused on military and infrastructure why have any consideration for how we spend our money in the tax code. Providing tax benefits for certain private spending is the same as the government spending on charity, right?

Not at all.

A person is a much better arbiter of where he should spend his own money than the state is. When the state confiscates money from a person, it removes that person's will and power to spend that money and substitutes its own. Yet governments are just people with arrogated power, and they suffer from exactly the same weaknesses as any one else. Thus when one person makes a mistake with his own money, it is a trivial thing, but when a person makes a mistake with other people's money, it is orders of magnitude greater.

The us government may be bad administrators in that regard, I personally have no idea, that does not make it all normative for all governments to be bad at it. Some governments actually do it very well.

By definition, a government cannot provide charity because governments get their money by legalized theft. Coercion is not charity.

Furthermore, government does not "give" its beneficence with the view of making the recipient a better person: it chooses to give to one person, as opposed to another, based on political determinations, not individual criteria. It does so to appear "fair", but equality is not necessarily fair.

Lehi

[Mark Beesley]

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.

CFR.

[Mark Beesley]

This country was founded on individual rights and liberties.

Actually, this country was founded on a Constitution which gives Congress the power to levy taxes, take personal property, raise a conscripted army, and, unfortunately, permitted the slavery of thousands of individuals.

[Tribunal]

Back to the subject:

Elder Oaks stated, "deductions encourage donations to church and other charities." Is this his point? Is this why the church wants donations to be deductable? Because they encourage donations to church other other charities?

This reminds me of a couple of years ago when Utah was planning on a flat tax. The Church was all for a uniform flat tax without all the numerous deductions except for tithing. Tithing needed to be a deduction from the flat tax.

The Church is very involved in the politics of Utah and the federal government.

If there is a tax then it should be flat, uniform, and without any deductions. If people want to be charitable then good for them! It should be their choice based on their desire to serve God, and their brothers and sisters, and not because of the deductions they get come tax time.

[Deborah]

CFR.

this has been discussed numerous times. Do a search on the internet: http://search.yahoo....20conservatives

[Deborah]

Actually, this country was founded on a Constitution which gives Congress the power to levy taxes, take personal property, raise a conscripted army, and, unfortunately, permitted the slavery of thousands of individuals.

The Constitution gives very limited powers to the federal government which have to to with raising armies for the defense of the nation and providing for the infrastructure for the benefit of all. The fact that subsequent Congresses have chosen to abuse these powers has nothing to do with the original intent which was to protect private property and individual rights.

[frankenstein]

It is only a matter of time before church on regular basis loose tax exempt status due to a churches policies practices beliefs. We have not had a Oliver cromwell type in the US, after wear do, then the pendelum will swing stern and hard against religion. I say the US is safe from this happening so long as the US keeps religious knutters out of political offices.

It is only a matter of time before churches on regular basis loose tax exempt status due to a churches policies practices beliefs. We have not had a Oliver cromwell type in the US, after we do, then the pendelum will swing stern and hard against religion. I say the US is safe from this happening so long as the US keeps religious knutters out of political offices.

Edited October 22, 2011 by frankenstein

[thesometimesaint]

Deborah:

The US Constititution dos no such thing. What it did do is put property(money), and life subject to the rule of law. SEE Amendments 4 and 5. It took those powers away from a king, or religion and invested them in the Judiciary Branch.

[Deborah]

Deborah:

The US Constititution dos no such thing. What it did do is put property(money), and life subject to the rule of law. SEE Amendments 4 and 5. It took those powers away from a king, or religion and invested them in the Judiciary Branch.

Wow, where do you get your information. http://constitutiona...nstitution.html

Specifically:

The Constitution does not give you rights. The founders considered your rights to be "God-given" or "natural rights" — you are born with all your rights. The constitution does, however, protect your rights by:

• Limiting the powers of government by granting to it only those specific powers that are listed in the Constitution; (This has not proven to be effective of late.)
  
• Enumerating certain, specific rights which you retain. These are listed in the Bill of Rights.
  

The rights deemed most important by the founders are specifically listed in the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights also says that, even though a particular right is not listed in the Bill of Rights, you still retain that right. Any powers not specifically delegated by the Constitution to the federal government are retained by the states and the people (you).

So, without the Constitution, the states and the people have all the rights and there is no federal government. With the Constitution, the states and the people keep any rights not specifically delegated to the federal government by the Constitution. The Constitution states this very clearly.

Unfortunately, the government today seems to recognize only those rights specifically listed in the Bill of Rights and even these often receive little more than lip service, when your rights interfere with some government objective.

[LeSellers]

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.

CFR.

I haven't seen Deborah's response, but this may serve.

Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism']When I started doing research on charity, I expected to find that political liberals — who, I believed, genuinely cared more about others than conservatives did — would turn out to be the most privately charitable people. So when my early findings led me to the opposite conclusion, I assumed I had made some sort of technical error. I re-ran analyses. I got new data. Nothing worked. In the end, I had no option but to change my views.

In his book, we find:

• Although liberal families' incomes average 6 percent higher than those of conservative families, conservative-headed households give, on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed household ($1,600 per year vs. $1,227).
  
• Conservatives also donate more time and give more blood.
  
• Residents of the states that voted for John Kerry in 2004 gave smaller percentages of their incomes to charity than did residents of states that voted for George Bush.
  
• Bush carried 24 of the 25 states where charitable giving was above average.
  
• In the 10 reddest states, in which Bush got more than 60 percent majorities, the average percentage of personal income donated to charity was 3.5. Residents of the bluest states, which gave Bush less than 40 percent, donated just 1.9 percent.
  
• People who reject the idea that "government has a responsibility to reduce income inequality" give an average of four times more than people who accept that proposition.
  

New York Times writer, Nicholas D. Kristof']It’s true that religion is the essential reason conservatives give more, and religious liberals are as generous as religious conservatives. Among the stingiest of the stingy are secular conservatives.

...

Conservatives also appear to be more generous than liberals in nonfinancial ways. People in red states are considerably more likely to volunteer for good causes, and conservatives give blood more often. If liberals and moderates gave blood as often as conservatives, Mr. Brooks said, the American blood supply would increase by 45 percent.

So, you’ve guessed it! This column is a transparent attempt this holiday season to shame liberals into being more charitable. Since I often scold Republicans for being callous in their policies toward the needy, it seems only fair to reproach Democrats for being cheap in their private donations. What I want for Christmas is a healthy competition between left and right to see who actually does more for the neediest.

Lehi

[Cobalt-70]

The Constitution gives very limited powers to the federal government which have to to with raising armies for the defense of the nation and providing for the infrastructure for the benefit of all. The fact that subsequent Congresses have chosen to abuse these powers has nothing to do with the original intent which was to protect private property and individual rights.

The federal government has far more power than that, particularly after the Civil War amendments. The broadest powers given the federal government are the Commerce Clause and the 14th Amendment. The power to regulate interstate commerce is a huge power, given that all commerce nowadays has interstate consequences. That gives the federal government a broad regulatory power over the entire U.S. economy. The 14th Amendment gives the government the power to ensure due process and equal protection, which are also very broad powers.

[Deborah]

The federal government has far more power than that, particularly after the Civil War amendments.

As I said "subsequent Congresses have chosen to abuse these powers."