'Gotta keep thing interesting around here.

Charity under a mandate, eh, Sil? Just like mandatory “volunteerism” or “being asked to contribute” to ClintonCare back in the early 1990s? [chuckle]

Why stop there? Why not try a wealth tax, federal money for “Responsible Wealth,” and while we're at it, whatever we don't manage to federalize, we find another way to ensure that people who vote with their feet against bad policy in one state by going to another have to pay for the “privilege.”

Somehow I doubt even the most febrile Obamaniacs would be able to pull much of this off…

[Wolff is the author of a book on the wealth tax.]

http://bostonreview.net/BR21.1/wolff.html

“Tax the net worth of the very richest Americans on a regular basis during their lifetime.”

http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=a_b…

http://ag.ca.gov/cms_attachments/initiatives/pd…

“The abolitionists pushed Lincoln.
The labor movement pushed Roosevelt.
The civil rights movement pushed Johnson.
Help us push Obama.”

http://www.faireconomy.org/issues/responsible_w…

“… some of these descendants of George McGovern are agitating for another idea to narrow the gap between haves and have-nots. It's called a maximum wage …”

http://www.nytimes.com/1996/06/16/weekinreview/…

“The Great Depression gave us the minimum wage. Might we now see a “maximum wage,” thanks to the Great Recession?” [Pizzigati, author of a book on the "maximum wage"]

http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2009083423/…

“Having a federal minimum wage helps a little in spreading more economic justice. But the more important question in these terrible economic times is this: Should we have a maximum wage law?”

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/132274…

wow. Leonidas, I see I have credited you with considerably more intelligence or knowledge than you have. Now I feel foolish for debating with you at all. So pointless as this probably is, I'll provide a little primer on taxes. When someone pays 35% tax on their income and gets 35% deduction for what they donate to charity, that IS 100% deduction, they DO get a 100% deduction for the tax they owe. If we made that 100%, the taxpayer would be matching their donations 65:35. By your reckoning, taxpayers should donate almost twice as much as any rich citizen to their favorite charity, which could be their own. For example, for every 35 million Gates gives to the Gates Foundation, we would be obligated to kick in 65 million.

Man, educate yourself. That really shows a fundamental misunderstanding of tax policy.

Totally off base Greendreams.

My point is that any income donated to charities should not be taxed at all. No tax, nada, ZILCHO. 100% tax free. Income should be calculated for tax purposes after charitable donations are taken out.

Taking your 35% example. If you pay 35% in taxes and get a 35% deduction on charitable contributions you are still paying taxes on 65% of your contribution. If that tax is eliminated the individual will have more money in their pocket. Given that they were willing to give a percentage of their own money to charity, it stands to reason that a similar percentage of the extra money that they would have by not paying taxes on that 65% would also go toward charity. In fact, knowing it would be not taxed at all, they would be more likely to donate an even greater amount than that.

As for myself, here is how I address income. There are 3 piles. The first pile is my expenses, Food, transportation, clothing, taxes etc. After that is taken out I go to the second pile which is savings and investment and I put in what meets my goal as best possible allowing for some minimal amount going into the third pile. The third pile is charity. Now if after finishing the allocation to the first pile (which wont change due to any adjustment of charity tax policy), if I have more money left due to lower taxation then at least one of the other two piles will grow. If the second pile has already reached its goal only the third pile, ie charitable contributions will grow. If the second pile has not reached its goal then either it or it and the third pile will grow. Both of these will help the poor and disadvantaged one, the third pile, directly, the other the second pile indirectly by reducing the cost of capital to business which facilitates expansion and more hiring and higher wages.

I have no fundamental misunderstanding of tax policy, I worked in the field for a time, you simply have a fundamental misunderstanding of what I was saying. Perhpas I didn't express it clearly enough previously, but now I most certainly have.

Man, educate yourself. That really shows a fundamental misunderstanding of tax policy.

How about the upper crust gives to a most noble charity via a mandate?

You confuse charity which is voluntary with theft.

Considering that the top 1% currently pays more income taxes than the bottom 95% I think you already have that. They are the principle funders of all those State benefits that are received.

You are absolutely correct. Itemized deductions start phasing out at 160K, so you don't even get the full marginal rate benefit of contributions in the 28% bracket, much less 35%.

Maybe then these supposedly “superior” people will use their supposedly superior talents to find a way to lower healthcare costs down to where the rest of the world is paying for healthcare.

Start with Doctors.

So the upper income folks can lose their butts overnight depending on what the stock market is doing or not doing. Relying on a shakey and unpredictable income to then at their whim decide to give to [whatever] charity…well *smile* nice try…

How about the upper crust gives to a most noble charity via a mandate? They shouldn't object since they're all about charity right? *snicker* The welfare of the health status of their fellow citizens… Now there's a charitable drive I can get behind..lol…