Taxes

myp · Jan 27, 2013

chris7375 said:
Should Charitable giving truly need an incentive. I really don't think it should. Either a person give or they don't it is up to them.

I sort of understand you situations to be honest. Though maybe I am not 100% sure. If by not allowing a person to deduct the charitable giving how would it hurt the government. Does not the government make the rules on taxes to begin with? So would it not be prudent to take it away and change it so it is most beneficial to them?

The point of my example was that if it is a role of government or society to maximize utility of society, namely in this case the less fortunate, then sometimes incentivizing donations might be a good thing. To hold this view that people should give charity because they want to or otherwise they shouldn't and that in turn they shouldn't be incentivized to donate might lead to less aid or the same aid at greater societal cost.

So then the question arises, is it more important to you to enforce your ethical position that donations should be given completely altruistically or is it more important that the unfortunate get more help and in a way that might cost society less? For me that question is simple- I want the latter as it raises utility more. I don't care if people are donating only because they are getting incentivized to do so if in the end it creates the best aggregate outcome. Besides, even "real", non-government incentivized giving may not in fact be altruistic.

tecoyah · Jan 27, 2013

To depend on pure altruism alone when it comes to human nature is to expect the unlikely. It seems to me the tax incentive serves to tip those on the edge toward giving.

chris7375 · Jan 27, 2013

tecoyah said:
To depend on pure altruism alone when it comes to human nature is to expect the unlikely. It seems to me the tax incentive serves to tip those on the edge toward giving.

I disagree I feel people give because they want to give and not because they are enticed too give.

myp · Jan 27, 2013

chris7375 said:
I disagree I feel people give because they want to give and not because they are enticed too give.

Do you also disagree that incentivizing them means more people donate?

chris7375 · Jan 27, 2013

myp said:
Do you also disagree that incentivizing them means more people donate?

Do we know concretely that is the only reason a person donates? If not I would say until we know beyond a shadow of a doubt then I would say yes.

Though the people I know including myself donate because we want to not because their is an incentive.

myp · Jan 27, 2013

chris7375 said:
Do we know concretely that is the only reason a person donates? If not I would say until we know beyond a shadow of a doubt then I would say yes.

Though the people I know including myself donate because we want to not because their is an incentive.

I am not claiming it is the only reason someone donates, but that it leds to more people donating. When you pay people to do anything, you will generally have more people do it. I can't think of any literature off the top of my head, but I would not be surprised to find some that shows these deductions lead to more donations- I will look later when I have some more free time. (just using PF as a study break right now so don't want to get too distracted)

tecoyah · Jan 27, 2013

myp said:
I am not claiming it is the only reason someone donates, but that it leds to more people donating. When you pay people to do anything, you will generally have more people do it. I can't think of any literature off the top of my head, but I would not be surprised to find some that shows these deductions lead to more donations- I will look later when I have some more free time. (just using PF as a study break right now so don't want to get too distracted)

I donated about 1200 this last year...and though I feel good about the causes of the charities, Organizations, and individuals I gave to, I know I will benefit as well in the next month which allows me to do so.

It may be the "Right" thing to do...but I am glad my country agrees....and rewards me.

chris7375 · Jan 27, 2013

Interesting article in Time about eliminating tax breaks may not have such a big effect on charitable giving.

Two Studies ( I think the second one mentioned is a study) are sited in the article that say that tax breaks don't really matter. Either way this is why I disagree because people donate because they been there or know that it could be them. So again I disagree with people doing it for the tax breaks at all. They do it because they want to not because they get back.

http://business.time.com/2012/12/07/why-limiting-the-charity-tax-deduction-wont-destroy-charities/

misterveritis · Jan 28, 2013

A monthly itemized bill to the taxpayers

chris7375 said:
I agree not everything falls under income. Should we have the ability to get a portion of our taxes back at the end of the year?

For me if you pay taxes any taxes you should not have the ability to get even a percentage of those taxes back it defeats the purpose of having a tax. You tax people only to make their percentage given in smaller when filing.

To me that is backwards and is part of the cause in why we the government runs a deficit. I know it is not the whole cause or even maybe not a big part of the cause. Though I see it as a cause.

If you stop that and do away with it the money never leaves the governments pocket so it makes it hard earned in a sense (meaning it is always their never leaves). Will it solve our governments spending habits I doubt it thats another subject of its own.

One way to solve this is for the government to send every citizen an itemized bill every month and have us write a check every month for the amount government costs me.

Once people realized how enormously expensive government free stuff costs there would be far more pressure for less government intervention in our lives.

myp · Jan 28, 2013

misterveritis said:
Once people realized how enormously expensive government free stuff costs there would be far more pressure for less government intervention in our lives.

I'm not so sure. After all, a lot of people who actually go by the data and studies support more spending right now since rates are low. It is the populists who on a more massive scale don't.

misterveritis · Feb 1, 2013

myp said:
I'm not so sure. After all, a lot of people who actually go by the data and studies support more spending right now since rates are low. It is the populists who on a more massive scale don't.

What rates are low?

myp · Feb 2, 2013

misterveritis said:
What rates are low?

Treasury rates...

misterveritis · Feb 2, 2013

myp said:
Treasury rates...

So if the rates we give to lenders is low we should try really, really hard to position ourselves for bankruptcy right now?

Why not retire our debt?

myp · Feb 3, 2013

misterveritis said:
So if the rates we give to lenders is low we should try really, really hard to position ourselves for bankruptcy right now?

Why not retire our debt?

The rates we "give"? I think you misunderstand how bond markets work...

The whole point is because the rates are low, we are still okay on the debt and since the rates are low even relative to the medium run, right now is the time to spend on fiscally multiplying investments- things like research, infrastructure, etc.

misterveritis · Feb 4, 2013

myp said:
The rates we "give"? I think you misunderstand how bond markets work...

The whole point is because the rates are low, we are still okay on the debt and since the rates are low even relative to the medium run, right now is the time to spend on fiscally multiplying investments- things like research, infrastructure, etc.

See Hayek.

It is a trap.

myp · Feb 6, 2013

misterveritis said:
See Hayek.

It is a trap.

See my post in the other thread. You are doing a disservice to Hayek by pretending he is some sort of ideology. (might I add that Hayek has actually had a good amount of influence on my thought)

That aside, you think it is a trap. Care to elaborate, that could mean a lot of things...

misterveritis · Feb 6, 2013

myp said:
See my post in the other thread. You are doing a disservice to Hayek by pretending he is some sort of ideology. (might I add that Hayek has actually had a good amount of influence on my thought)

That aside, you think it is a trap. Care to elaborate, that could mean a lot of things...

Low interest rates. Binge spending. It is a trap. Now is the time to get out of debt not to go deeper into it.

myp · Feb 6, 2013

misterveritis said:
Low interest rates. Binge spending. It is a trap. Now is the time to get out of debt not to go deeper into it.

A trap for what? Right now the recovery matters more than the debt. If you go to harsh austerity, you will hurt recovery, in turn hurting growth, and eventually making the debt worse too as tax revenues take a hit. Also, do you or do you not believe in monetary stability? Even if that is your primary goal, you need low rates right now given how low inflation has been (below the 2% target).

misterveritis · Feb 7, 2013

myp said:
A trap for what? Right now the recovery matters more than the debt. If you go to harsh austerity, you will hurt recovery, in turn hurting growth, and eventually making the debt worse too as tax revenues take a hit. Also, do you or do you not believe in monetary stability? Even if that is your primary goal, you need low rates right now given how low inflation has been (below the 2% target).

Why should we go deeper into debt because the hangman's noose is cheap right now? Now is the time to cut back on those things that are unnecessary.

We coerce the citizens into giving up more than two and a half trillion dollars. That should buy a sufficient amount of government.

myp · Feb 8, 2013

misterveritis said:
Why should we go deeper into debt because the hangman's noose is cheap right now? Now is the time to cut back on those things that are unnecessary.

Well for one, there are almost undeniably certain fiscal multipliers. Second, we are in recovery. There is high unemployment and we are not at normal NGDP growth. Austerity only makes those two things worse and in turn can make the debt worse too. I'm not sure why you insist on ignoring the time value of money and the relative changes in that time value as reflected by bond markets.

Taxes

Similar threads