The point of charitable deductions is to incentivize certain types of behavior (ie. charitable donations). On the other hand the SALT deduction is effectively the federal government subsidizing high-tax jurisdictions at the expense of low-tax jurisdictions. The first seems far more defensible and in line with the federal government's mission[1], than some sort of mechanism to pad the finances of certain states. This doesn't necessarily exclude redistribute policies by the federal government entirely, but doing it by tax rate is baffling no matter how you look at it.
[1] and no, this argument doesn't work for the SALT deduction because state/local taxes aren't optional
So not only do I need to pay more taxes for the US government to fund almost double my states pro rata aid to places like West Virginia and Mississippi, but I get to pay even higher taxes because my locality actually provides things like sound education.
You know what, I think we should exercise the people’s desire for small government and relocate military bases to the places that pay for them.
Wouldn't the most effective solution be to reduce the number of things the federal government does? Rich blue states make their choices and keep more of their revenue within state boundaries and residents of red states get to decide if they like their current choices lower (or no) federal subsidy.
Practically speaking (not politically speaking), that seems like a point the left and right should be able to agree on.
I’ve run into so many people in my time who’ve had to suffer in various ways because of senseless circumstances. One person lost their home due to a medical condition and the associated costs. Had it happened 6 months before his employee health plan changed, his family’s life would have taken a dramatically different path.
It is even worse if there is an ethnic difference in the mix (e.g. the Flemish vs. the Walloons in Belgium).
Also, I wonder whether New York / California liberals would really welcome soldiers among them and whether the military could recruit enough people there. Amazon got kicked out from New York for being too capitalist.
It definitely seems to me that the coastal elite wants a strong military to protect their trade empire, but preferrably located far away and with someone else's kids doing the dangerous parts of the job.
Which your area benefits from....
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/after-generations-of...
That’s a problem that seems to Mostly being addressed by nonprofits very slowly, and not the government …
Addressed in my original comment (although it was edited in a few minutes after initial posting so I'll let it slide):
>This doesn't necessarily exclude redistribute policies by the federal government entirely, but doing it by tax rate is baffling no matter how you look at it.
Do you know what military bases do? They aren’t there to protect just a local region.
https://www.dw.com/en/german-towns-face-economic-hit-should-... -- "German towns face economic hit should US troops go"
Much of the military is used by politicians as an economic tool for certain regions, independent of their fighting value.
So, you certainly have a mostly local economic impact of military bases.
https://www.areadevelopment.com/siteSelection/june09/militar...
https://www.tpr.org/military-veterans-issues/2020-06-22/texa...
OPs flippant comment reminds me of the equally un-serious suggestion I read somewhere, some time ago, that people should pay for their jobs so that it can be made visible how valuable they think a job is.
Taxes are one of the main ways the government tries to influence behavior (eg. sin taxes, green energy incentives). What do you suggest should take their place? Or do you think that government shouldn't be in the business of influencing behavior entirely?
It seems unreasonable for employers to not be able to deduct that amount and for the government to somehow pay them a fraction of what it costs to employ people.
* - I suspect it’s the largest overall, but didn’t have time to do the research to satisfy myself that it’s the single largest, but it’s clearly one of the largest.
To be fair it's not wages that are benefited specifically here, it's business expenses in general. If anything, wages are treated worse than other expenses (eg. buying a printer), because they're subject to payroll taxes. As for why expenses are deductible in the first place, that's done for a good reason as well. If you don't do that, you end up taxing x% for each step in the value chain, which would give huge tax benefits to conglomerates (which own the entire value chain) compared to small businesses.
Furthermore, there are lot of costs which you arguably can't avoid: food, medical, housing etc. Should you be able to deduct those off of your federal taxes as well since you can't really dispose of that income freely?
If you take that attitude then that invalidates the original argument - in that case, surely it's just as reasonable for the federal government to incentivise local mutual support cooperatives (which is what high-tax jurisdictions ultimately are) as it is to incentivise 503cs.
> Furthermore, there are lot of costs which you arguably can't avoid: food, medical, housing etc. Should you be able to deduct those off of your federal taxes as well since you can't really dispose of that income freely?
Yes, absoutely! The fact that you can't do that unless you structure yourself as a business is one of the great injustices that leads to the rich paying a much lower real tax rate than the poor.
Enough theft from my pocket. I'll fund my fellow man. But to fund a man who calls himself my enemy and removes my freedom: it takes a Big Government fanatic to require that.
Those giving up their money are in the best position to ensure it is used towards the ends they want. I think direct oversight is a positive attribute and useful in ensuring the altruistic goals are effectively met.
I also oppose local tax deductions despite standing to benefit greatly.
I am perfectly content with private actors deciding how best to use their own money for philanthropic purposes. It leads to a more diverse set of approaches. If there are people that believe in one thing and others that believe the opposite they should both be allowed to fund what they think is right without a democratic majority stifling minority points of view.
I do not have a point of view on whether it is worthy of a tax break.
Not so much benevolent as accountable. The government, for all its faults, has a huge edifice of checks and balances, and while the gears grind slowly they do limit how far astray things can go. A private 503c is a real wild west in comparison.
If the government doesn't do a single thing I like, more than half my income still goes to taxes each year to fund the government (income, property, sales, etc.), and there is nothing I can realistically do to change that.
Which one is accountable?
It also assumes that government policies support the whole community, which I don't think is true either. It is pretty common for policies to harm one group in the community and benefit a different group in the community.
I think accountable means that when I give someone money, they should use my money for what I want, and you think accountable means that when I give someone money, they should use my money for what you want.
Remind me. Who was fired for Waco? Who at the CDC was fired for stopping the Seattle Flu Study from testing for COVID, or for banning commercial labs from testing for it while their own lab reported all samples as positive because of contamination?
Can you back that up? I know people who were in poverty and very much support many of those programs as lifesavers. It's wealthier people, who have no experience of them, who I see disparaging them.
Also, the criticism is cliche - I haven't seen much evidence of it. While nothing is perfect, the civil service in most advanced countries, including the US, are not patronage jobs; they are protected from such hiring and firing corruption. I know civil servants and they did not get the job through patronage and take their public service and professionalism very seriously. It's very easy to smear all those people in a few words.
That doesn't really address the issue though, does it? Food stamps are better than nothing, but they do not in fact allow recipients to spend the assistance as they see fit.
It's fine to be in favor of social engineering programs, but it's not consistent to then complain that philanthropists' charity comes with strings attached. The government's charity does as well.
I don't know what you mean: This doesn't seem to fit the common definition of social engineering, or we could call stop lights and tax forms social engineering; so I can't say I'm in favor, against, etc. And 'strings attached' is much too vague, as everything has strings attached (e.g., legal requirements); the question is the degree and who the strings serve.
> we could call ... tax forms social engineering
Tax forms are obviously social engineering. The government incentivizes (having kids, having a mortgage, saving for retirement, charitable giving) and disincentivizes all kinds of things via the tax code.
That's somewhat true as a description of the average government programme, but it's far more true as a description of the average 503c.
How does this argument work for other deductions that also allow you to "fund personal causes"? For instance, the IRS allows you to deduct interest paid on student loans. I can get student loans to study anything I want, and doing so is arguably used to to advance my "personal agenda" (eg. getting a phd in economics so I can work in a thinktank). Should I be worried that the action was a "reflection of their personal politics" and therefore not get a tax break for it?
Feel free to repeat this argument for other deductions that the IRS offers: https://www.irs.gov/credits-deductions-for-individuals
Source? Most fundraising events have a deductible and non-deductible portion of the ticket price because the IRS does not look fondly on such practices.
Like the complaints at Liga Chilena Contra la Epilepsia, they just have a Sugerencias y Reclamos book, which you can read (though they told me it is not for me to read). You can see for instance that they addressed one complaint they got a lot, which was the lack of cashiers, so in fact with their remodel five years ago they changed it completely so they now have up to 8 cashiers at a time, and short wait times. My favorite Chilean pharmacy, I'll repeat here the comment I left for that charity: "Un siete!"
They are wealthy people who have no experience or knowledge of what people without wealth need.
In the US, when you add federal, state, and local revenue, about $8.3 trillion dollars are collected in taxes and fees. The GDP of the US is $20 trillion, so 40% of every dollar produced goes to the government.
This is about $25,000 of tax per person, or $32,000 if you only count adults.
My personal thought is that the main difference between the US and countries with generous public institutions is not the amount of tax revenue collected, but the percent of that revenue effectively spent on said institutions.
With defense spending, pet projects, and incompetence, it is hard to make a case that they are on parity.
I get to avoid capital gains on the donation of appreciated assets on top of that.
For whom is the benefit only 20%?
the salt is called via a $
different political things, but the salt cap was a punitive thing purely for you to have resentment about where you live, it’s interesting that instead you got resentment for non profits
republicans want you to have resentment at high tax states run by democrats, so that you consider regime change in that state