Trump eyes cap on charitable deductions

[mahatmakanejeeves]

Source: The Hill

Trump eyes cap on charitable deductions

By Alexander Bolton - 04/19/17 06:00 AM EDT

The Trump administration is taking a serious look at capping tax deductions for charitable contributions, according to a source familiar with the discussions.

Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin and Trumps other senior advisers are mulling their next steps on tax reform, and the proposal to limit deductions for charitable giving hasnt yet gained widespread acceptance, two officials said.

A senior Senate aide said limiting charitable giving is within the realm of possibility, although Mnuchin has not raised it explicitly in his meetings with some GOP senators.
....

Limiting tax deductions for major charitable gifts would be a way to raise revenue by targeting wealthier taxpayers. A major criticism of Speaker Paul Ryans (R-Wis.) border-adjustment tax proposal is that it would hit middle- and low-income Americans by increasing the costs of consumer products.

Read more: http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/329419-trump-eyes-cap-on-charitable-deductions

---

It would also be a great way to put Planned Parenthood out of business. First, cut off Federal funds. Next, put a cap on itemized deductions.

Think of charitable contributions as vouchers. We didn't mean that you're supposed to use them.

Full disclosure: having just done my taxes, I can state that I itemized deductions for the tax year 2016. There was a contribution to Planned Parenthood in there. What I gave is nowhere near the amount of any proposed cap. George Soros, on the other hand, will run into that cap.

See reply #17 for clarification on stricken material.

[BumRushDaShow]

1. How about eliminating deductions for private planes?

[mahatmakanejeeves]

3. I must have overlooked that line. NT

[unblock]

5. damn, now i'm gonna have to amend my return!

[mahatmakanejeeves]

6. No problem. Just file a 1040X. Here:

Form 1040X Amended U.S. Individual Income Tax Return

Instructions for Form 1040X (Rev. January 2016), apparently still good.

Full disclosure: I'm not an accountant, but I play one about this time every year.

[hibbing]

2. But the top rates will still be reduced n/t

[alwaysinflux]

4. You know why he's fine with this?

Because he doesn't do philanthropy.

[Zoonart]

7. OMG if this keeps up...

I will not make it through this day. Every time I check in I see more shit!
These Scrooge MF'ers want to throw Granny off of Medicare and Medicaid, stuff the orphanages with unwanted children and destroy the ACA,
then tell communities that faith-based charities and other charitable orgs. will have to pick up the slack. Then...they work to de-fund those very
organizations by limiting the deduction for charitable giving, putting a chill on big donors. Words fail.

[haele]

13. Population Control. All dictatorships do it.

The authoritarian rule of thumb is that you can't maintain a dictatorship with more than 25 active adult citizens to each enforcer (< pre-teen kids, the disabled, and housebound elderly don't count).
Prisons work the same basic ratio, no less than two guards at any one time for every fifty convicts. So, if you have a standing police force of around 1 million, you can only have 25 million additional free-range "adult citizens" working and being active in the community.

Again, pre-teen kids, disabled people, and housebound/frail elderly don't count. So you can have about 20 million of those, the "dependents" who are either heading out of the citizen population through attrition, or being groomed to replace the active citizenry as part of the workforce.

So, in a GOP American Utopia, 1 million police and 25 million active citizens (preferably White, Christian, and relatively well off), 20 million dependent "citizens" whose wellbeing is paid for by the active citizenry is just fine. Make it a population of 50 million citizens, tops.

And equally "just fine" would be 200 - 300 million "disposables"; the rest of the population, left to either rot in jail, starve in the streets if they don't make enough money using their bootstraps, or otherwise live a life of furtive indentured servitude in the shadows of society, waiting to get thrown in jail if they act out or piss off their wealthy owners.

Haele

[DK504]

19. He is most definitely try to push us into poverty.

He is push to put people that can't pay their taxes into the exploding private prison market that Jeff Session has a stake in.

There's no cap on the dark money being shoveled into PAC's, but trying to help those in need??? That just incomprehensible!!!

There is already a cap on charity gifts, I guess those that want to give $5 million to Haiti or NOLA or new equipment at hospitals must be stopped.

"Please sir, may I have some more?"

[roamer65]

23. If it's GOoP'er, it's a dystopia.

[dalton99a]

8. Show us the tax returns

[lark]

9. Typical Trump - all hate and no caring.

He doesn't donate to charity, so he doesn't want other people to get credits for their charity donations. You could bet a bundle that if anyone in his family where major donaters, there'd be a big exemption for that. Since it doesn't benefit him personally, he has no use for it. This is always the case with that orange assface.

[mopinko]

10. how about limiting the deductions for giving to churches?

cap that at 5% and hit the fundies and the mormons.

eta- yeah, i know. fat chance. a girl can dream.

[OldHippieChick]

20. Not that religious people aren't generous, but

if they cap those deductions, they will see more charities lacking funding. Most religious organizations I know are the main funders of other charities: Planned Parenthood (yes, I'm Presbyterian), Habitat for Humanity, Homeless Shelters, Food Banks, Goodwill, Summer camp for kids at risk, etc. I know this as I have been on church boards and we have major outreach and we decide who will receive funding. In fact, many years our budget has been short and people have wanted to reduce our charitable giving. When church members find out that is a possibility, all hell breaks loose and they increase their giving to be sure we continue to fund these outside groups.

I know many of you poo-poo religious (especially Christian) organizations, but please know many of us are responsible for funding really worthy institutions and Planned Parenthood has always received a major gift from my church, among others.

[RobinA]

11. Do These People

look for ways of being odious? Meals on Wheels? THIS? Who goes after charity and old/disabled people?

[xxqqqzme]

15. "What would a dick do?"

Bill Maher

[n2doc]

12. But but then HOW would the KOCH bros get their names on buildings all over?

This doesn't have any chance of passing. None.

[jmowreader]

14. The Religious Right will leave the GOP in droves if he does that

A True Republican is a man who will spend $10 to save a dollar on his taxes. And a lot of True Republicans (especially the ones who are rich - not Trump-rich but actually rich) donate heavily for exactly that reason.

Planned Parenthood isn't going to be hurt by this. The kind of person who donates with thoughts of his Schedule A would love to see PP vanish. Who will be hurt? St. Jude's in Memphis. Shriners Hospitals for Children. Universities. Megachurches. The kinds of charities where you get your picture in the paper for two-comma donations thereto are going to be hosed, and they'll fight Trump on this.

[LiberalArkie]

16. Might be a very good idea.

I am guess that every single 5%er has their own foundation or charity. They give money to it and deduct that contribution. But as a member of the board, they have to be paid something. They fly on the charities dime, the stay at expensive places around the world on the charities dime. They even have their companies build buildings in their name and get money back that way

There are reasons they pay little taxes, they give heavily to their own foundation or charity.

[onenote]

17. Charitable contributions already are limited in a couple of ways

For example, The amount one can deduct for charitable contributions can't be more than 50% of one's adjusted gross income. The charitable contribution deduction may be further limited to 30% or 20% of one's AGI, depending on the type of property donated and the type of organization to which it is donated.

I'm not sure how often the above limitations come into play. A more common limit on charitable contributions applies to taxpayers' whose adjusted gross income is more than $311,300 (married filing jointly or qualifying widow(er)); $285,350 (head of household); $259,400 (single); or $155,650 (married filing separately). The formula by which the allowable amount of the deduction for charitable contributions is complex. One example: for a married couple with $426,300 in adjusted gross income and $24,000 in itemized deductions (certain categories excluded) the would have to reduce their itemized deductions by at least $3,375. For a higher income taxpayer (a George Soros for instance), the phase out of the deduction likely would be much higher (up to 80 percent).

Without seeing the details of the new proposal, it's difficult to see how it would impact the George Soros' of the world beyond the existing limits. What would worry me is that it won't really be aimed at higher-end taxpayers, who already give large donations often without that much consideration to the tax savings (which as noted are limited), but at "regular" taxpayers who still get to take the full amount of their donations as a deduction.

[mahatmakanejeeves]

18. Thanks for the clarification. As I said in reply #6, I am not an accountant; I just

Last edited Wed Apr 19, 2017, 08:19 PM - Edit history (2)

play one this time every year.

I haven't had to deal with numbers quite that big so far.

Thanks for writing.

[smirkymonkey]

21. I thought the whole point of cutting social programs and lowering taxes was

that they expected that people would make up the difference in charitable contributions. Wasn't that their argument?

Motherfu**ers!

[Ilsa]

22. They want all of the do-gooder organizations to either

Fail or become dependent on the ultra-wealthy to survive, meaning the ultra-wealthy can dictate policy and purpose.

[riversedge]

24. REC.

[briv1016]

25. What does Donald care? He doesn't give one cent to charity.

I bet that also applies to most congressional Republicans.