Christopher, I suppose I really need to be asking these questions on a public policy basis rather than a legal basis. So let me put it this way: taxes are often used as a tool to promote a public good. However, granting tax deductions for those who voluntarily support those goods imposes a cost on those who do not see those donations as goods. I see no reason why indirect tax money ought to go to support tax-deductible organizations such as the NRA or various churches.
My argument is simple. If these organizations are important enough to the general welfare of the country, and if the projects or purposes of the organization are too expensive to be funded through private initiatives, then they ought to be funded directly by the government. For example, organizations like the CDC or NIH should be supported by the government. But why should organizations offering no compelling public good -- organizations like the NRA -- be subsidized by indirect tax dollars?
do you REALLY want government bureaucrats in charge of the boy scouts, the United Way, the Seattle Art Museum, Bush School, etc.?
No, I do not want the government in charge of those organizations. But there is no reason why donations to them must have a tax deductible status, and there is no reason why government should be precluded from providing them with grant money. The theoretical advantage to the latter approach is that there would be greater public scrutiny.
The one major portion of tax reform under Reagan that I did like was a large increase in the standard deduction. This had the practical effect of limiting charitable and religious deductions.
To Blue -- this position is consistent with my liberal philosophy. I see nothing wrong with public spending to right wrongs or to further the public welfare. Money for schools, housing for the poor, health care, pollution abatement -- these are all examples of government initiatives that I wholeheartedly favor.
TTFN,
CTC |
