Well, it looks like president Obama finally read Arthur Brooks’ book Who Really Cares. Obama realizes that limited tax donations will not really effect his voting base. Conservatives are the ones who donate more money and time. I’m not exactly sure what the White House is thinking on this one. Add this to the blind stupidity file along with the Capital Gains. There’s no reason to do this other than partisan gain. It’s not going to mean more tax revenue. What’s the point in going to war with charitable organizations? What does the president hope to gain?
President Obama’s proposal to limit the tax deductibility of charitable contributions would effectively transfer more than $7 billion a year from the nation’s charitable institutions to the federal government. But the high-income taxpayers affected by the rule change are likely to cut their charitable giving by as much as the increase in their tax bills, which would, ironically, leave their remaining income and personal consumption unchanged.
Every time something like this comes up I grow more and more convinced that the president is completely clueless. The only thing he has going for him is reading speeches on the campaign trail. Everything else so far has been a mess.
On a couple of occasions I’ve written about charitable giving, especially concerning liberals and conservatives. Economist Greg Mankiw mentioned this phenomenon after seeing the Wall Street Journal’s article about Senator Biden’s tax return. Evidently Biden isn’t such a big fan of charity. It’s especially bizarre considering the fact he ran for president (on more than one occasion) and had to have known that his tax records would be public. Mankiw cites Arthur C. Brooks book Who Really Cares.
Conservatives who practice religion, live in traditional nuclear families and reject the notion that the government should engage in income redistribution are the most generous Americans, by any measure.
Conversely, secular liberals who believe fervently in government entitlement programs give far less to charity. They want everyone’s tax dollars to support charitable causes and are reluctant to write checks to those causes, even when governments don’t provide them with enough money.
Why do people who give less to charity want to redistribute other people’s money? Are the philosophies income redistribution and centralized planning an avenue to alleviate guilt?
Last year Arthur C. Brooks published a book titled “Who Really Cares.” It attacked many of the incorrect assumptions that define Conservatives and Liberals. The main premise of the book was the fact that on average Conservatives donate money to charity more often than people who identify themselves as liberals. They donate more money and a higher percentage of their incomes.
The idea the bleeding heart liberals care more and give more of their time to worthwhile causes is a perception that continues to exists. Another false perception is that Conservatives represent the rich. Brooks stated that Liberal families average 6 percent higher incomes than conservative families. There’s an article in today’s Washington Times about a study by the Heritage Foundation that finds that Democrats are the party of the rich.
It appears that people who suffer from a liberal ideology believe they care more, give more, and are right about policy when in fact they have guilt about giving less, being rich, and being wrong. There’s some kind of self-loathing going on when everything is America’s fault. Katrina, that’s the government’s fault. The fires in California, that’s the government’s fault. During the last eight years it’s one thing after another that can be blamed on Bush. It’s no mystery that a huge government is incapable of providing the basic necessary aid to the people; however, it’s puzzling that Liberals believe more government is the answer to almost every problem. Well, is the government good or is the government inept? Please pick one and stick with it.
Recent Comments