I understand why I would get a tax deduction if I donated, say, $500 to the Speedway Drama Dept. Like all drama/arts/music programs, it is a worthy cause and generally does not get the support that, say, the football team does (though I would still get the tax deduction if I donated to the Speedway football team).
It makes sense from a policy standpoint that we would want to encourage private actors to donate to charity. Tax deductions are a well-accepted mechanism whereby the government encourages such donations. So, if I donate $500 to the Speedway Drama Dept., I can deduct $500 from my taxable income at the end of the year. Stated another way, I don't have to pay taxes on that $500.
What if, however, my better angels were not controlling.
What if, to take a single example, I wanted to donate my $500 to "Americans for Tort Reform," a "non-profit" 501(c)(3) group that advocates for easier access to the courts in personal injury cases. As both readers of this blog know, I am a litigator. I litigate personal injury cases, generally from either side of the "v," though more often than not on the defense side.
If I am encouraging legislation, through my non-profit donation, that aids my bottom line, is that really charity? Or is that simply self-interested lobbying?
While we're at it, recall that political donations are NOT tax deductible. So, if (when) I decide to donate money to the "Re-Elect Gary Raikes for Speedway Town Council Fund," I have to pay taxes on that money. Both dollars (Sorry Gary, they haven't passed the "make it easier to sue people, rendering defense attorneys more valuable Act of 2017" yet) are taxable.
I suppose the point of this blog is that not all "charitable donations" are created equally. That is one of the problems we run into when we equate money with speech. Is some speech more "worthy" than other speech? Probably. Is the government empowered to make that determination? Maybe. Should the government make that determination. You tell me.
No comments:
Post a Comment