Washington – The Senate narrowly rejected a move to criticize President Obama’s proposal to limit tax breaks wealthy people can get for charitable gifts, instead adopting language saying only that Congress should preserve the charitable deduction on income taxes.
Subscribe to our Daily Roundup Email
Sen. John Thune, Republican of South Dakota, had proposed that the lawmakers express support for the current deduction system, arguing that the president’s plan would harm charities by lowering an incentive for giving.
But the senators rejected his proposed resolution by a 48-49 vote after Sen. Max Baucus, chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, offered an alternative text.
Senator Thune’s proposal, an amendment to a national-service bill, asked lawmakers to approve a “sense of the Senate” that Congress should preserve the “full” federal income-tax deduction “and look for additional ways to encourage charitable giving.”
Senator Baucus, Democrat of Montana, argued that language was too broad. “It would put the Senate on record as favoring preservation of incentives for charitable giving over all other priorities,” he said. For example, it could prevent the Internal Revenue Service from cracking down on a charity scam or impede efforts to repeal the estate tax, which encourages charitable giving by allowing people to decrease the tax liability on inherited wealth, he said.
“What if we reach a bipartisan budget agreement to limit the deficit and help to balance the budget,” he added. “Might we want to consider, I say just consider, limiting the ability of upper-income taxpayers to take their full deductions?”
Senator Baucus proposed that the Senate remove the word “full” and just express support for preserving the charitable deduction.
That amendment passed by 56 to 41. All those voting against were Republicans.
President Obama has proposed curbing tax breaks on itemized deductions, including donations to charity, for the wealthiest Americans as a way to raise money to revamp the health-care system, starting in 2011.
“The Senate missed an opportunity to affirm our commitment to charitable giving,” Senator Thune said in a press release after the vote. “Government programs alone cannot replace the services that nonprofits and private charities provide to those in need, especially during these difficult economic times.”
This is part of the great messiahs way of incorporating socialisim.
Much less charity = more people on govt programs = bigger budget for welfare and food stamps = higher taxes…….
Those who voted for the obama – thanks.
I suspect that this has nothing to do with chartible deductions. It anyways has no chance to pass congress, as no congressman wants to be blamed for failed charities.
What this really is to eventualy limit the political deductions. As we saw the Democrats got the donations from the small guy, and the republicans got from the big guy. So now they forsee a simple method to limit the republicans contributions, stop the big guys from giving by limiting their deductions, while still giving the small guy. Get Ready!
what? you people are nuts. 5% tax dedction for only the highest and wealthiest donors wont change a thing. why understimate their generosity over a little less of a tax break?
This is much ado over very little. The proposal is to allow the wealthiest Americans to get 28% of their charitable contributions back in taxes, rather than 35%. However, almost everyone affected by this proposal already can get only 28% back because of the Alternative Minimum Tax and will therefore be unaffected. Furthermore, under current law, the wealthiest Americans lose a significant portion of their itemized deductions anyway because of the “phase out” rule.
Does it not make all the 73% of the Yiddun, that voted for the messiah, feel good about their choice?
He is only beginning. Maybe next time you can think with your brains, rather than with your ******!
It seems to me that this is very significant. If we do the math, every dollar a donor enjoyed in tax savings under the old law is now 80 cents. In many cases, that will means the donor has less to give. Simple.