Charity

NPR finally explained it to me this morning in a way this simple mind can understand - basically, charity breaks down like this:

I give $1.00 to charity I get 15¢ back on my taxes; Bill Gates gives $1.00 to charity he gets 35¢ back on his taxes.

President Obama's budget proposal would scale back what Bill Gates gets back to 28¢.

I knew even before I heard them say it that the argument would be, "If you take away the beneift for the rich, then they won't donate as much to charity."

Which is illogical, because they're not getting PUNISHED for donating, they're simply not getting AS MUCH BACK. They're still getting almost 30% BACK. Were I rich, I wouldn't cut back on spending, I'd simply move the money to a more lucrative investment . . . AH, so that's what they're talking about! The rich won't stop donating, they'll just put it somewhere where they can get over 1/3rd of it back. Hm, seems to me the only thing that would give that rate of return would be those shady investment deals that have already bankrupted us.

And besides, I should think that all those Republicans who purport themselves to be Christians should be stepping up to state that, as Christians, we are not supposed to expect anything back when we donate to charitable causes. In fact, that's what "charity" means - giving something without expecting anything back! If I donate just to get a tax break (and yes, I do turn in my Goodwill donation sheets each year, as well as my tithe) then it is not charity. I'm not being hypocritical, because I don't consider it charity - I consider it for what it is: donating for return.

Maybe the rich aren't hypocritical either - perhaps they only give just for the benjamins. Perhaps America has raised their incentive to 35¢ on the dollar in order to SPUR them toward donating more.

And that, my friends, is where this argument has led me to: the terribly sad conclusion that we have developed a culture that does not give in order to help, it gives only based on what we get back. That's a terribly sad commentary on us.

The only positive solution I can think of at the moment would be this: Say that the rich will scale back their donations because their tax incentives are scaled back. We keep that, but, knowing that President Obama was so skillful at organizing a grass roots movement to keep millions of small donations flowing to his campaign, perhaps now his administration can use the same tactic - get the word out, via Internet, YouTube, ads, whatever, to tell those under $250,000 about the 15¢ they get back, and increase their donations. Perhaps even make EVERYBODY's return to say, 25¢ on the dollar, and increase public awareness of the tax break (which I guarantee you most making under $100,000 don't know, bother with, or care about) in order to spur them on.

Leaving it like it is, frankly, is basically telling the majority of Americans that which we already know, that my $1.00 simply is not worth as much as Bill Gates' $1.00. A single dollar is worth different amounts - it simply depends on whose hands it's in.

And it seems to me that throughout all this mess, the rich are determined to keep it in their hands.

Please feel free to let me know if you think I'm wrong.

VG