Oaks Fighting for Tax-Exempt Status

[The Rambam]

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700189123/Elder-Oaks-testifies-before-Senate-committee-defends-charitable-deductions.html

What I think Oaks is really saying here is that if people had to donate to charitable organizations with after-tax dollars, they would give less. The reason they would give less is that they don't value charitable giving highly enough to take the hit out of their savings or spending, so they would take the money to make up for the increased taxes out of their donations.

In other words, Elder Oaks doesn't believe charitable-givers value the services provided by the charities highly enough to maintain the level of giving by sacrificing income.

I'm struggling to say it clearly, but the point is that I think Oaks is conceding that people give to a certain pain threshold and no more instead of valuing what they get out of their church or what their community gets out of the charity to a certain level and giving that certain amount.

Of course there would be givers in both camps, but obviously Oaks thinks the pain-threshold givers are a significant number.

To illustrate: we are taught to pay tithe on 10% of our increase. Say I'm a net tithe payer and I give 10% of my take-home pay. If the law changed and there were no tax benefit to paying tithing, I should theoretically still give 10% of my take-home pay (which didn't change when the tax write-off rule changed). The charitable deduction law wouldn't matter to the Church, because they get the same amount either way.

Oaks seems afraid that instead of still paying 10% of my take-home pay, I would notice the tax hit compared with last year (before the change in law). Last year I paid $x less in taxes due to the charitable giving write-off. And so instead of paying 10%, I'm going to pay 10%-$x to make sure that my lifestyle isn't impacted.

It seems Oaks is telling us he doesn't trust us to pay an honest tithe. So he wants the government to keep the tax exemption.

Either that or he just wants us to be richer and pay less taxes. But it seems to be more than just a philosophical position on limited government. He seems worried about revenue.

[TripletDaddy]

Mistrust, cynacism, selfishness, profit driven.

I think you have done a nice job capturing the essence of Dallin H oaks.

[Jacob]

Of course he, and every other charitable organization are worried about revenue drying up if the tax favored status is lost. Is that a surprise? It's not merely a matter of the 10% either. Entire estates escape taxation when they are gifted to charity.

But, contra Oaks, I'm in favor of limiting the charitable deduction. Especially for estates. I think we ought to capture Warren Buffet's and Bill Gates' wealth, if no one else's.

[creekster]

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/7...eductions.html

What I think Oaks is really saying here is that if people had to donate to charitable organizations with after-tax dollars, they would give less. The reason they would give less is that they don't value charitable giving highly enough to take the hit out of their savings or spending, so they would take the money to make up for the increased taxes out of their donations.

In other words, Elder Oaks doesn't believe charitable-givers value the services provided by the charities highly enough to maintain the level of giving by sacrificing income.

I'm struggling to say it clearly, but the point is that I think Oaks is conceding that people give to a certain pain threshold and no more instead of valuing what they get out of their church or what their community gets out of the charity to a certain level and giving that certain amount.

Of course there would be givers in both camps, but obviously Oaks thinks the pain-threshold givers are a significant number.

To illustrate: we are taught to pay tithe on 10% of our increase. Say I'm a net tithe payer and I give 10% of my take-home pay. If the law changed and there were no tax benefit to paying tithing, I should theoretically still give 10% of my take-home pay (which didn't change when the tax write-off rule changed). The charitable deduction law wouldn't matter to the Church, because they get the same amount either way.

Oaks seems afraid that instead of still paying 10% of my take-home pay, I would notice the tax hit compared with last year (before the change in law). Last year I paid $x less in taxes due to the charitable giving write-off. And so instead of paying 10%, I'm going to pay 10%-$x to make sure that my lifestyle isn't impacted.

It seems Oaks is telling us he doesn't trust us to pay an honest tithe. So he wants the government to keep the tax exemption.

Either that or he just wants us to be richer and pay less taxes. But it seems to be more than just a philosophical position on limited government. He seems worried about revenue.

I guess. I skimmed Oaks' article and I really dont think he said what you asserted at all. One might infer that is what he was worried about, but it certainly isnt what he said. One might also believe what he said at face value, simple though that is. Perhaps he is also just trying to make it as easy and painless as possible for persons, including members of the church, to make charitable donations.

[Coach McGuirk]

Let me guess, you plan on posting about and parsing every action of the LDS church, correct?

[YOhio]

You have it all wrong. This is Elder Oaks dog whistle to Utah Mormons that Orrin Hatch's position as Ranking Member on the Senate Finance Committee is important and valuable to the LDS Church. No way will he get a primary challenge after this.

[CardiacCoug]

Charitable giving is a good thing so tax policy should continue to treat charitable giving favorably through a tax deduction.

Yeah, that's a pretty sinister position Oaks is taking there (not to pile on -- nice to have you back Rambam).

[beefytee]

How much would getting rid of the tax deduction affect charitable contributions?

Would any of you stop donating tithing or fast offerings if it was no more?

How many people say, "I wasn't going to buying a house, but since the mortgage interest is tax deductable, I'm all in." I think Freddy Mac and Fannie Mae have been much more important to home ownership than the tax deduction.

I suppose it would affect investment property which had there not been the extra incentive might have help before the housing bubble.

It also leads to impractical behavior, such as people mortgaging their house to buy a car, since home mortgage interest in tax deductible and car loan interest isn't.

All in all, I think the importance of these deductions influencing our decisions are overstated, especially for the cost to government revenue.

I still would have paid my tithing and fast offerings. I still would have bought a house. I still would have paid tuition and gone to college.

I wish they would lower the tax rate, get rid of itemized deductions and simplify the tax code.

[Katy Lied]

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/7...eductions.html

I'm struggling to say it clearly, but the point is that I think Oaks is conceding that people give to a certain pain threshold and no more instead of valuing what they get out of their church or what their community gets out of the charity to a certain level and giving that certain amount.
.

I disagree with your definition. I bet Gary Becker would disagree as well.

[byu71]

Charitable deductions like any other deduction or tax credit is in the books for social engineering purposes.

Since this one benefits me, I am OK with it.

One thing I have always found amuzing in this state and have had to agree with comments from some of my non-mormon friends is the tax status of the church.

Their basic comments is you guys encourage large families. Those large families cause classroom sizes to be large. Then you gripe about not enough money being spent on education.

All the while your church is exempt from property taxes that funds education.

I have to fall back on the tried and true response. "If you don't like it here and how we run things, move". Although I may agree with them, my allegiance is and always will be to my culture.

[ERCougar]

Rambam, you're one of my favorite posters and I'm glad you're back, but these two have really missed the mark with me. I don't have much new to offer that hasn't been said, but I think Coach said it most succinctly. There are bigger issues to discuss.

[Sleeping in EQ]

I think Oaks is just acknowledging the world we live in today, and that he anticipates that the kind of changes President Obama has in mind will have a negative impact on the Church's revenues.

For me, the bigger issue is the tension between what Christ taught and what is practical in a world where the Church is a corporation.

[byu71]

I think Oaks is just acknowledging the world we live in today, and that he anticipates that the kind of changes President Obama has in mind will have a negative impact the Church's revenues.

For me, the bigger issue is the tension between what Christ taught and what is practical in a world where the Church is a corporation.

I for one would be interested in hearing this. Could you maybe give me 3 succinct examples. Hopefully they will be fact and not just yours and maybe others interpretation of what he taught. I don't want to get into an argument about it.

[Mormon Red Death]

I think Oaks is just acknowledging the world we live in today, and that he anticipates that the kind of changes President Obama has in mind will have a negative impact the Church's revenues.

For me, the bigger issue is the tension between what Christ taught and what is practical in a world where the Church is a corporation.

Isnt tax deduction a function of the government? Didn't Jesus teach to Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's.?

[SoonerCoug]

Religion should not be exempt from taxes. Religion is just another form of business.