The budget proposal, if passed, would essentially be a tariff on giving by the most-generous donors, Mr. Sharpe said. “If we need this money for social purposes,” he said, “why not tax wealthy people who do not give to charity?”Now there's an idea. Use taxes to incentivize charitable giving. Since charitable organizations, relief groups, and non-profits are--and should be--stepping in where the government does not provide services, individuals of all income levels should be encouraged to support them. The idea is to let these groups be a resource for those who need assistance -- going up the chain from trying to accomplish something on your own, then turning to family, then to churches and other organizations, before turning to the government. Since these non-profits are taking some of the social service burden off the government, it seems only fair that individuals who contribute to them get some tax relief.
And, it seems only fair that the wealthy who choose not to give to non-profit organizations be taxed so that some of that money can go towards government programs--or even government assistance to non-profits.
(ASIDE: Have you ever stopped to think what even portions of the government bailouts given to auto makers, banks, and others could do for an organization like the Red Cross? In 2003, the Red Cross estimated that their costs for disaster relief assistance for the victims of Hurricane Isabel would $14 - $17 million. An infusion of portions of the billions going to GM, Chrysler, AIG, and others could be used to make sure that the Red Cross--and other relief organizations--have the resources they need to help others. And they can do it cheaper than the government can because of their vast network of volunteers and other resources! That sounds like some "change" well spent, especially as this new year brings a new cycle of disasters and other calamities.)
I wonder what something like this proposal would do for the charitable giving "market." Your thoughts?
