NationStates Jolt Archive

In past years, tax law allowed us to deduct $250 in charitable donations from our income without having to show receipts. The IRS has changed that, now you need to show receipts for every penny of your charitable donations.

Imho, this is going to lead to a sharp decrease in donations, especially to groups that depend on things like jars at checkout stands for change, or like the Salvation Army with their buckets outside stores. In any case, I think a number of charities are going to suffer.

The Feds are doing this to increase the tax take by a few thousand dollars and a number of groups that depended on impulse giving are going to suffer.

So, do you feel, as I do, that this is going to be detrimental to charitable impulse?

Is this going to cause you to think twice about what you donate and to whom?

I do think it will be detrimental. Not everyone just gives to give. Some give knowing they will get it back at the beginning of the year. This WILL affect their ability to give.

I think it might be detrimental to the people who give to charity in order to get tax breaks, but I don't think the nickel-and-dime stuff like the Salvation Army kettles will suffer. I was a bell-ringer for them this past Christmas, and you'd be surprised how all that spare change adds up.

I'm still going to do the usual charitable stuff I do, reagrdless of how the government tries to squeeze me for it.

Charity begins by giving to me. anything more then what I need will be distributed to the other poor people. that is final.

The tip stuff, probably not so much. I mean, who really kept track of it to deduct in the first place. Larger donations might however.

well it certainly doesn't begin with symbolic value.
it begins with not beating yourself over the head.
fallowed immediately by not beating anyone else over the head either.
then it extends to healing the sick and injured, keeping everyone fed, and protected from the storm. from there it extends to insuring universal access to useful information, all information anyone feels would be individually useful to them, and then ultimately to the means of the real gratifications of creating and exploring.
but it begins, really begins, with not being unkind to yourself, because how can you then even judge what is kind or unkind to someone else if you do?
fairness isn't you OR everyone else, its you AND everyone else.

In past years, tax law allowed us to deduct $250 in charitable donations from our income without having to show receipts. The IRS has changed that, now you need to show receipts for every penny of your charitable donations.
About time.

Imho, this is going to lead to a sharp decrease in donations, especially to groups that depend on things like jars at checkout stands for change, or like the Salvation Army with their buckets outside stores. In any case, I think a number of charities are going to suffer.
One wonders why these charities don't give a receipt. I don't trust people who won't give me a receipt if I give them money.

Shouldn't give to charity anyway, that's what we've got Government for.

Charities have already been showing reduced charitable profits over these past few decades, due to changes in tax laws.

How is it charity when you get something tanglible - tax deductions, whatnot - in return? :confused:

How is it charity when you get something tanglible - tax deductions, whatnot - in return? :confused:

Ask the person recieving it. But not to worry, I personally look forward to the end of private charity (or the need for it) over the next eight years-after all, we have a government that is willing to print as much money as it must to give to those, like the now unemployed mortgage brokers, or ACORN managers, who need it most.

Who needs Charity? we have Government now.

Imho, this is going to lead to a sharp decrease in donations, especially to groups that depend on things like jars at checkout stands for changeAre you telling me there are people that deduct the change they put in those jars from their taxes?

I can see deducting 100 dollar donations, but loose change? That's nuts.

How is it charity when you get something tanglible - tax deductions, whatnot - in return? :confused:Because you get less in return than you give. You don't have to pay tax over your deduction.
At least that's how it works here, afaik.

In past years, tax law allowed us to deduct $250 in charitable donations from our income without having to show receipts. The IRS has changed that, now you need to show receipts for every penny of your charitable donations.

Imho, this is going to lead to a sharp decrease in donations, especially to groups that depend on things like jars at checkout stands for change, or like the Salvation Army with their buckets outside stores. In any case, I think a number of charities are going to suffer.

The Feds are doing this to increase the tax take by a few thousand dollars and a number of groups that depended on impulse giving are going to suffer.

So, do you feel, as I do, that this is going to be detrimental to charitable impulse?

Is this going to cause you to think twice about what you donate and to whom?
you shouldnt put money into those spare change charity donation boxes anyway. they are put there "for pay" on the understanding that the putter will give a small amount of the take to the charity and keep the rest for themselves.

not counting the "susie needs money for her liver transplant" jars but those may not be official charities in any case.

I can see deducting 100 dollar donations, but loose change? That's nuts.

Well if you could do it without showing reciepts, I'm surprised that everybody wasn't claiming it.

Because you get less in return than you give. You don't have to pay tax over your deduction.
At least that's how it works here, afaik.
But you're giving money away in order to be compensated - even to spite the government - rather than without any strings attached.

To drive a point, let's exaggarate a bit...That money is away from, say, the local road upkeep: That 100, 200 taxdollars might've fixed that broken streetlight and saved the life of the kid whose scout organization you just donated that few hundred bucks.

From my perspective, calling a donation charity makes sense only when you alone lose the value you give to charity - Not when society as a whole loses a good portion of your donation.

In the past I had given donations of goods to places like Habitat for Humanity, they will not give you a receipt, they will give you a slip of paper that says "thanks" but it doesn't have an amount of your donation. I wonder how this will negatively affect them and if they will start giving documentation.

Well if you could do it without showing reciepts, I'm surprised that everybody wasn't claiming it.

"Everybody" wasn't claiming it, because most people didn't even know that deduction existed-until it was eliminated and made the news. Hell, most of the IRS don't know the entire Tax-Code.

But you're giving money away in order to be compensated - even to spite the government - rather than without any strings attached.I really don't see how you can call it compensation, considering how little you get back for it.

To drive a point, let's exaggarate a bit...That money is away from, say, the local road upkeep: That 100, 200 taxdollars might've fixed that broken streetlight and saved the life of the kid whose scout organization you just donated that few hundred bucks.I'm really not seeing what you're getting at here. I'm being compensated for my donation by the death of a boyscout? I don't dislike them that much.

From my perspective, calling a donation charity makes sense only when you alone lose the value you give to charity - Not when society as a whole loses a good portion of your donation.But society doesn't lose any portion of my donation, they just don't tax it. My money isn't society's to start with, I'm not giving away their money.
And regardless, it fits the dictionary definition of charity either way. If someone wants to match part of my donation with their own, then it's still charity. I don't get off any better from it.

In past years, tax law allowed us to deduct $250 in charitable donations from our income without having to show receipts. The IRS has changed that, now you need to show receipts for every penny of your charitable donations.

Imho, this is going to lead to a sharp decrease in donations, especially to groups that depend on things like jars at checkout stands for change, or like the Salvation Army with their buckets outside stores. In any case, I think a number of charities are going to suffer.

The Feds are doing this to increase the tax take by a few thousand dollars and a number of groups that depended on impulse giving are going to suffer.

So, do you feel, as I do, that this is going to be detrimental to charitable impulse?

Is this going to cause you to think twice about what you donate and to whom?

I'm not sure. I don't know what proportion of non-documented charitable giving comes from people who benefit from itemizing deductions. Lots of small donations are already receipted (e.g. if you send a check for $5 to the Salvation Army they'll send you a letter) and lots of people don't itemize because for them the standard deduction is greater.

There will certainly be a decrease in the amount of charitable donations reported to the IRS, but at least some of that will be attributable to the recession and some will be donations that weren't made in the first place (like all those infants who disappeared off of tax forms once the IRS required SSNs for every child deduction.)

The big losers I see are churches, because members often donate a significant amount which isn't documented. Maybe you're not worried about the tax deduction for the $10/year you drop in the red bucket, but the $10/week you drop in the collection tray might make a serious difference in your taxes. They'll have to find some way of receipting those. Or the IRS might make an exception.

I really don't see how you can call it compensation, considering how little you get back for it.
Would you give equal amount of money and/or resources to charity without compensation?

Why would anyone appreciate tanglible compensation for charity work anyways?
I'm really not seeing what you're getting at here. I'm being compensated for my donation by the death of a boyscout? I don't dislike them that much.
It was an exaggerated example based on unintended consequences:
- You gave <a number> of dollars to the scouts for charity
- You save few hundred dollars on taxes
- The scout promoting <a charity> who collected the money is happy
- The streetlight doesn't get fixed because country/state/city misses the few dollars from its maintenance budget
- Later, the scout gets killed run over by a car in dark because the light isn't fixed.

But society doesn't lose any portion of my donation, they just don't tax it.
You're effectively paying less taxes, hence society loses a portion of the money that would otherwise go the shared coffers: Tax money (often) pays for a lot of things from public schools and critical infrastructure to healthcare and defence of the nation itself.

Giving money to charities, apparently in some nations, reduces the money available to other public services hence I don't see it as "charity" but more like "alternative tax".

Well if you could do it without showing reciepts, I'm surprised that everybody wasn't claiming it.

That's the beauty of transaction costs. Raise the difficulty even a little and you'd be amazed at how many people are too lazy to go that extra step.