You wrote in the September 16th edition of WSJ an editorial titled “Soak the Rich? No, Soak the Needy“. You describe how Obama’s proposal to remove charitable deductions will motivate the rich to not make donations. The rich will keep their money. The benefactors will loose the money — in your case, an up and coming college student. So, in essence, Obama’s plan to burden the “millionaires ” (actually, folks grossing over 250K), damages the poor recipients.
You are right in your observations. However, consider carrying your thoughts one more step forward. On average, when charitable giving decreases, now we have one more needy person needing Federal subsidies for schooling. In the end, the recipient will get scholarships or aid some other way. The difference is that the government wants to control and funnel the money. On the average, people at the end of the whip won’t gain or loose. Instead, the net effect is funneling the dollars through the government. It’s an issue of control. They give the money, not you. It builds dependencies. It builds constituents. They get to choose how to spend the money rather than you.
99% of ICOs Will Fail
The 10,000 year view of cryptocurrency
David Brooks is a mostly left-leaning journalists who writes for the New York times. In yesterday’s piece, he made it obvious that he’s had enough of Obama’s obfuscation, turned to lying, turned to self-deception. He wrote, “The president is sounding like the Al Gore for President campaign, but without the earth tones. Tax increases for the rich! Protect entitlements! People versus the powerful! … We’re not going to simplify the tax code, but by God Obama’s going to raise taxes on rich people who give to charity! We’ve got to do something to reduce the awful philanthropy surplus plaguing this country!”