USA is #1!

[Wezil]

picnic

[OzzyKP]

And 35 % for Belgium is a joke. There are loopholes the size of the moon in our legislation.

Same here, which is the problem. Companies (and individuals) with skilled accountants can find all the loop holes and pay little in taxes, while the rest of us get stuck. Which is why we absolutely need to simplify the tax code, throw out most of the loop holes (leave charitable deductions!!) and lower the rates.

[Jon Miller]

If we increased the welfare state I would be fine removing charitable deductions too.

JM

[Hauldren Collider]

Same here, which is the problem. Companies (and individuals) with skilled accountants can find all the loop holes and pay little in taxes, while the rest of us get stuck. Which is why we absolutely need to simplify the tax code, throw out most of the loop holes (leave charitable deductions!!) and lower the rates.

No. Sorry, I realize this would be bad for your chosen career, but that attitude is exactly why we haven't fixed the tax code yet.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I have to agree. Its always "cut out the loopholes, except the ones I like" mentality that make sure nothing happens.

[OzzyKP]

It is a big reason why the US has such a hugely developed charitable sector compared to other countries. And why those other countries have such developed government welfare systems, because there isn't much of a private effort to provide for the needy. Removing it would be a huge blow to the poor in this country.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I understand the sentiment, but a LOT of loopholes have good reasons behind them.

[OzzyKP]

None equal to that.

[Hauldren Collider]

Cutting the mortgage deduction loophole could cause people to lose their homes. Cutting the retirement loophole could force people to retire later. Plenty of people will argue that their loophole is the most important, to the point where it doesn't matter whether they're right or wrong. Once you start slaughtering the sacred cows, you pretty much have to slaughter them all, because it's too politically difficult to start picking which ones can stay and which ones can go. The flipside to this is that it's really hard to START slaughtering the sacred cows, because, being sacred cows, there is someone who thinks theirs are more important than anyone else's.

Sorry Ozzy, there's no way that charitable donations can get special treatment.

[Jon Miller]

There is.

It just is easier to argue without defending that.

BTW, as with many things I don't think you can remove charitable donations/etc and have our current welfare system.

JM

[OzzyKP]

Most all of the loopholes benefit wealthy or upper middle class people, whereas by encouraging more charitable donations (by those same wealthy folks who itemize their taxes) the true benefits of this deduction go to the poor. So yea, our three choices are either a social darwin state, a strong private charity sector, or a strong government welfare system. Between those three options, private charity is the clear choice.

[Hauldren Collider]

No, most of the loopholes, if not all of them, benefit the middle class. Government-secured college and mortgage debt, healthcare, retirement plans, all of these things benefit the middle class far more than any other.

[OzzyKP]

That's my point. The middle class can take care of themselves far better then the poor.

[Jon Miller]

No, most of the loopholes, if not all of them, benefit the middle class. Government-secured college and mortgage debt, healthcare, retirement plans, all of these things benefit the middle class far more than any other.

I disagree, I think the wealthy benefit the most from the loopholes.

JM

[giblets]

Tax deductions for charitable donations seem fine so long as only organizations that do things that would otherwise be done by the government are eligible.