Are taxes and charity equitable?

[alp227]

Are taxes a form of charitable donation?

Republican presidential challenger Mitt Romney seemed to suggest he may think so last week, when he responded to questions about how much he pays in taxes by suggesting people should examine his total contributions to the government and charities.

The comment was a quick one —a by-golly insistence that despite paying a relatively low tax rate on his vast wealth, the millions he’s given in charity show he’s not a greedy guy.

...

“I’m proud of the taxes I pay. My taxes, plus my charitable contributions, this year, 2011, will be about 40 percent,” he said during a debate between the Republican presidential candidates in Florida in January.

Full: http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/romneys-equating-of-taxes-and-charitable-giving-sparks-debate/2012/08/18/63bea3e6-e891-11e1-936a-b801f1abab19_singlePage.html

[rfranklin]

1. He is obligated to fund his religion through tithes...what other groups has he donated to?

I betcha they are all run by Mormons.

[sad sally]

2. Robert Reich has a good comeback to this strange thinking.

Mitt’s 13% Tax
by Robert Reich

Mitt Romney says “every year I’ve paid at least 13 percent [of my income in taxes] and if you add in addition the amount that goes to charity, why the number gets well above 20 percent.”

Assume, for the sake of the argument, he’s telling the truth. Since when are charitable contributions added to income taxes when judging whether someone has paid his fair share?

More to the point, Romney admits to an income of over $20 million a year for the last several decades. Which makes his 13 percent — or even 20 percent — violate the principle of equal sacrifice that lies at the core of our notion of tax fairness.

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2012/08/18-1

[Igel]

4. There's isn't an "our notion" of tax fairness.

Not if he meant "Americans'" when he said "our."

There are various ideas of fairness. We insist on not discussing them and merely imposing one. Or several. In many ways, to debate them is to acknowledge a diversity of opinion and to accept the idea that two or more values can be present and ranked in different ways, with different outcomes. It makes moral judgmentalism a lot harder and blurs ideological boundaries.

Even the DNC's notion of tax fairness isn't one of "equal sacrifice." Progressive, yes, although quantifying "equal sacrifice" is always a problem--but when we have all kinds of carve-outs and exemptions to help governmental or social goals.

Look at the home-buyers and green-energy rebates. They reduced "equal sacrifice". You buy a new AC unit or a house and you get the unit or the house--and you pay less in taxes. Is that equal sacrifice? No. But it was deemed a Good Thing because it met a governmental goal.

As for the difficulty of quantifying "equal sacrifice" you also have to look at "equal reward." It's fair to increase taxes so that the rich should pay a lot more in absolute dollars. They have more, and to "feel the pain" in the same way they should pay more. If the poor contribution another $1 billion, the rich should contribute another $85 billion, let's say. That they probably don't feel the same pain is beside the point; most of us don't confuse fairness with vindictiveness or revenge. However, when it comes to tax reductions and "feeling the joy", we insist on equal amounts: It's patently unfair for most of the dollars of a tax reduction to go to the rich, even if the poor might "feel the joy" to a greater extent getting $1000 in tax reductions than the rich would getting $100,000 in tax reductions.

[Retrograde]

3. I wouldn't call a manadatory tithe to one's church charity

even though the law treats it as such If you have no choice in paying it, or the choice is pay up or get out, it's a fee or a tax.

Mitt doesn't strike me as a cheerful giver: it tithing weren't required I think he'd give a lot, lot less. In the one partial tax return he's released his charitable deductions are either directly to the LDS, or indirectly through his foundation - which spends the bulk of its donations on Mormon-related programs.

Keep digging, Willard.

[Igel]

5. "Are taxes a form of charitable donation?" is the wrong question.

"Are charitable donations a form of taxes?" is also the wrong question.

The answer to both is "no." This rather misses the point.

If "we" are the people, and the government is to further the goals of the people in some societally useful and beneficial way, then taxes further the goals of the people. It should be for the general welfare and common good. Keep in mind that "general welfare" is the happiness, prosperity, and "doing well" of the population as a whole.

But the government can't express the ideals of all the people. Nor can it know the people's mind. Because, in fact, ultimately the government is a group of people paid by taxes. Any time you get a group of people working as a group they will develop their own idea about what's good and proper. Put them in power and before long they know what you want and need better than you do--and, oddly, that'll be exactly what they believed was wanted and needed all along.

So the government has allowed for personal sponsoring of societally good and useful things, things that promote the general welfare and common good, even if locally, things that are an expression of popular will with social consequences. Religious and cultural and "social welfare" and educational organizations, for example, have blurry lines. The church I was in engaged in social welfare work, to a limited extent. It also engaged in cultural activities. It was part of civil society, and the US government has traditionally not been so self-centric as to disallow sponsoring of these activities.

So charitable contributions and taxes aren't equivalent. One goes for activities as authorized by politicians and bureaucrats, the former ostensibly representing us in general but only with difficulty representing all of us at any time or even most of us on a particular issue. The other goes for activities deemed important by individuals.

But charitable contributions and taxes are equivalent. Both go for activities deemed by at least some to be societally useful and beneficial, if not essential. Both constitute a sacrifice--whether compelled or voluntary--on behalf of what is deemed the common good and general welfare.