entry archive

July 02, 2006

The Gates Foundation and the Estate Tax--Posner's Comment

Charitable donations last year totaled some $260 billion, given mainly by individuals; foundations gave only about 11 percent. Religious institutions receive about 40 percent of the donations; the next largest category, education, receives less than half that. Medical research, the arts, environmental groups, and victims of poverty and disasters are the other major recipient groups.

It is generally taken for granted that charitable donations are a "good thing," because the donor is not getting anything in return and therefore must be motivated by pure good will. That is probably true of donations to victims of poverty and disasters; such donations are altruistic in the sense that the benefit to the donor comes from the fact that he internalizes the suffering of the victim. However, such donations account for little more than 10 percent of total charitable giving. Most other charitable gifts go to support services that the donor consumes directly (such as religion or environmental amenities) or indirectly--indirectly when for example a college alumnus donates to his college, the donation helping to maintain the college's prestige, a commodity that benefits the alumnus, or to gain admission to the college for the donor’s kids.

There is nothing wrong with such spending, any more than there is with other lawful consumption choices. But it should not be confused with altruism. The only defensible rationale for a tax break to encourage such donations is that there is a free-rider problem which a matching grant (the effect of the tax break) can help overcome: the prospective donor who wants to increase his alma mater's wealth benefits from other alumni donations to his college and so may donate less than he would if he derived no benefit from those other donations. The government's matching grant, in the form of a tax break (so if the donor is in the 30 percent bracket, the government in effect pays $3 for every $7 that he donates), reduces the cost of donation: it costs him only $7 to enrich his alma matter by $10.

If the charitable deduction from federal income tax were eliminated, there would be less charitable giving, but income tax rates could be lowered without loss of government revenue. Because free-rider problems are a source of genuine inefficiencies, there would be a reduction in allocative efficiency from this change. But income tax like other taxes creates allocative inefficiency as well, and that inefficiency is reduced by reducing the tax rate. So it is not clear that there would be any net increase in inefficiency from eliminating the charitable deduction.

Since charitable bequests are exempt from the estate tax, abolishing that tax would lead to a reduction in such bequests; an effect of 6 to 12 percent has been estimated. The negative efficiency effect of eliminating the government's matching grant for charitable donations would not be offset by lower income tax rates; those rates would have to be raised to make up for the shortfall in tax revenue caused by the abolition. Unlike Becker, I do not favor the abolition of the estate tax. Apart from the effect of abolition on the charity free-rider problem, the tax appears to be relatively efficient. The tax falls mainly on very wealthy people, who are unlikely to give away all their wealth during their lifetime in order to beat estate tax. Indeed, for people who have no bequest motive and die with assets only because, not knowing exactly when they would die, they did not want to pauperize themselves, the tax has minimal misallocative effects.

Suppose there were a 40 percent estate tax on estates of $1 billion or more and a back-up 40 percent gift tax on gifts, including charitable donations, by billionaires. The Gates foundation, as enriched by Warren Buffett's gift, will have assets of some $60 billion, and under the assumption of a 40 percent gift tax $24 billion would have gone to the government, reducing the foundation's assets to $36 billion. There is no way in which Gates and Buffett could consume $60 billion in the remainder of their lives, so probably such taxes would not have deterred the gifts. It might seem that the critical question would then be whether the government or the Gates foundation would spend the $24 billion more efficiently. But that is not correct. Assuming that total tax revenues were not intended to be altered by the imposition of the 40 percent gift tax, the $24 billion in gift-tax revenue would be returned to taxpayers in the form of a reduction in their income taxes or other taxes. The question would then be whether the taxpayers or the Gates foundation would spend the money more efficiently. I believe the taxpayers would. The foundation is an inherently inefficient allocative institution because, much like the government, it is not subject to market tests. There is no way to assess the value of the Gates foundation’s expenditures because the foundation is not competing in any product or capital market. (Colleges and most other recipients of charitable gifts, in contrast, compete in product markets.) Gates and Buffett are extremely able businessmen but the Gates foundation is engaged in activities, such as fighting Third World diseases, that are remote from their business experience.

Becker and Casey Mulligan have argued, with empirical support, that "efficient" taxes aren’t really efficient, because they enable government to grow, and government is inefficient. In recent years, however, we have seen a conjunction of tax cuts with rapid growth in government spending. Federal spending as a percentage of GDP rose from 18.5 percent at the beginning of the Bush Administration to 20.3 percent in 2005, the gap between tax receipts and expenditures being filled by borrowing, mainly from foreigners. Under present conditions, it is uncertain that making tax policy more efficient will stimulate further government growth.

Posted by Richard Posner at 09:44 PM | Comments (18) | TrackBack (0)

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.lessig.org/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/1250

Comments

I hope someone donates billions to start new universities with professional schools (not liberal arts) at the center and helm.

Posted by Arun Khanna at July 2, 2006 11:10 PM | direct link

At least currently, the federal government is doing a particularly bad job of spending its discretionary funds, because the process has been corrupted by politics and cronyism. The Gates foundation, on the other hand, is funding innovative work across the globe and is willing to fund scientific and medical research, for example, that the current federal government will not fund for political reasons. So, I applaud Buffet's donation to the Gates foundation. This is an excellent use of the deduction for charitable gifts.

Posted by David at July 3, 2006 12:03 PM | direct link

Judge Posner
I see a possible problem I see with your example with a 40% charitable gift tax with an offsetting reduction in income taxes. You argue that taxpayers would probably be better at spending the money than a charity would. I am not entirely sure that is true. The bottom 40% of Americans, for example, pay no income tax and thus would not benefit from decreased income taxes. Meanwhile, I am guessing that this group is the one that benefits the most from charitable activities. Isn't it possible that the return [in utility] to charitable expenditures is higher than to the expenditures of taxpayers? It seems to me that a dollar does much more for those at the bottom than those at the top. Unless the poorest also share in the rebate you suggest, I think it is at least possible that charities would be more efficient at spending the money.

Posted by Haris at July 3, 2006 02:52 PM | direct link

An interesting argument but I think you overlook some important points.

First of all what the free market optimizes and what we want as a society are different things. The free market will optimize production and efficency while as a society we also value overall happiness and lack of suffering. I suspect that charitable giving turns out to increase total happiness more than comparable spending on personal recreation. This will be true if for no other reason that then relation between money and happiness is sub-linear. Thus it can overall be a societal good to encourage giving as oppossed to buying other goods.

Taxing gifts at a high rate would do just the opposite. It would strongly discourage people from giving as they could buy something for themselves without paying the 40% (the buisness is only taxed on profits not total price). Moreover, the psychological effect is likely to be much stronger than what rationality would dictate. Making charitable gifts tax deductable is a form of moral praise for the people making them thus removing this deduction even in a charity neutral way would have a negative effect.

Additionally imposing such a tax on private charities would encourage people to seek government run programs for their favorite causes. Even though such a program might be totally revenue neutral each particular cause has more of an incentive to have the government do the work rather than encouragin donations which will get taxed at 40%. In other words you increase the benefit for lobbying the government as compared to encouraging private donations.

Posted by logicnazi at July 3, 2006 06:35 PM | direct link

I think the most efficient use of Buffett's billions is to bequeath it to Richard Posner. I am willing to bet that Richard Posner has no cogent rebuttal to this argument.

Posted by W at July 3, 2006 07:05 PM | direct link

W, you make that statement secure in the knowledge that Judge Posner must be somewhat circumspect in his remarks, given his high public duties.

I personally believe that Posner would put Buffett's billions to very efficient use, for example, funding the sorts of scholarly inquiries he has pursued, to his readers' benefit, for several decades.

(I freely admit that I could misjudge Posner, who might truly be a moneygrubber hiding behind a beneficent public facade, but, then, I've read his works, which suggest nothing of the sort.)

Posted by Jake at July 3, 2006 08:31 PM | direct link

Posner has oversimplified the reasons for alumni donations to their alma mater. People often recall their undergraduate days with a great deal of fondness and that affection translates to donation.


If prestige-enhancing motivations dominate donative intent you would expect giving to one's professional or graduate institution would exceed giving to one's undergraduate institution. (Since the prestige of your terminal degree is much more likely to affect your career & income). I suspect the opposite is true. Does anybody have a different sense? Or data?

Posted by Jesse at July 3, 2006 10:00 PM | direct link

Posner assumes that a government's income from estate tax on large gifts would automatically reduce income tax for citizens. That's a bold assumption. In any case, it boils down to which of the two parties, government or foundations, are the more effective allocators of capital.

Posted by O at July 4, 2006 12:08 AM | direct link

In letters accompanying his bequests, both to the Gates foundation and to the smaller foundations run by his family members, Warren Buffett expressed the hope that the foundations would remain narrowly focused and concentrate their effort on just a few neglected issues.

http://www.berkshirehathaway.com/donate/webdonat.html

If we suppose that there is merit in such concentration of effort, it would tend to be thwarted by Judge Posner's scheme, which would effectively fracture the money between the concerns of a hundred million taxpayers.

Posted by Richard Mason at July 4, 2006 12:12 PM | direct link

Jesse: If prestige-enhancing motivations dominate donative intent you would expect giving to one's professional or graduate institution would exceed giving to one's undergraduate institution.

Anecdote: The largest single gift to an institution of higher education, so far, is Gordon Moore's $600 million given to Caltech, where he got his Ph.D., not to Berkeley where he was an undergraduate.

I do not know if people with advanced degrees are more likely on the whole to give to their undergraduate schools, but if it is true that they are, that might also be explained by the "please let my kid in" theory of alumni giving.

Posted by Richard Mason at July 4, 2006 12:31 PM | direct link

W, you make that statement secure in the knowledge that Judge Posner must be somewhat circumspect in his remarks, given his high public duties.

Thanks for assuming the worst, but I am not Ronald Dworkin, i.e., I bear Richard Posner no ill will. I like the Honorable Judge Posner and his websiteand thought I would bring levity to his life with a delightful joke. But since you have no sense of humor, Jake, I suppose I should reply to the substance, or lack thereof, in your "argument," if the collection of sentences you managed to (drunkenly?) string together can be fairly construed as an argument. There is no reason to believe that Richard Posner lacks self-interest. If you believe that Richard Posner is Mother Teresa, then please explain why he doesn't sit on the 7th Circuit for free and why he didn't donate the proceeds of his many books to charity, Joke. I mean, Jake.

Posted by W at July 5, 2006 12:36 AM | direct link

I personally believe that Posner would put Buffett's billions to very efficient use, for example, funding the sorts of scholarly inquiries he has pursued, to his readers' benefit, for several decades.

Like investigating the fashion-sense of lesbians, as he did in Sex and Reason? You're right, Jake, we need more inquiries like that one.

Posted by Lesbian Reader! at July 5, 2006 12:39 AM | direct link

1


mmxq.html


mmxr.html



mmxu.html



mmxw.html



mmxx.html



mqaa.html



mqab.html



mqac.html



mqad.html



mqam.html



mqaq.html



mqar.html



mqau.html



mqaw.html



mqax.html



mqba.html



mqbb.html



mqbc.html



mqbd.html



mqbm.html



mqbq.html



mqbr.html



mqbu.html



mqbw.html



mqbx.html



mqca.html



mqcb.html



mqcc.html



mqcd.html



mqcm.html



mqcq.html



mqcr.html



mqcu.html



mqcw.html



mqcx.html



mqda.html



mqdb.html



mqdc.html



mqdd.html



mqdm.html



mqdr.html



mqdq.html



mqdu.html



mqdw.html



mqdx.html



mqma.html



mqmb.html



mqmc.html



mqmd.html



mqmm.html



mqmq.html



mqmr.html



mqmu.html



mqmw.html



mqmx.html



mqqa.html



mqqb.html



mqqc.html



mqqd.html



mqqm.html



mqqq.html



mqqr.html



mqqw.html



mqqu.html



mqqx.html



mqra.html



mqrb.html



mqrc.html



mqrd.html



mqrm.html



mqrq.html



mqrr.html



mqru.html



mqrw.html



mqrx.html



mqua.html



mqub.html



mquc.html



mqud.html



mqum.html



mquq.html



mqur.html



mquu.html



mquw.html



mqux.html



mqwa.html



mqwb.html



mqwc.html



mqwd.html



mqwm.html



mqwq.html



mqwr.html



mqwu.html



mqww.html



mqwx.html



mqxa.html



mqxb.html



mqxc.html



mqxx.html



mraa.html



mrab.html



mrac.html



mrad.html



mram.html



mraq.html



mrar.html



mrau.html



mraw.html



mrax.html



mrba.html



mrbb.html



mrbc.html



mrbd.html



mrbm.html



mrbq.html



mrbr.html



mrbu.html



mrbw.html



mrbx.html



mrca.html



mrcb.html



mrcc.html



mrcd.html



mrcm.html



mrcq.html



mrcr.html



mrcu.html



mrcw.html



mrcx.html



mrda.html



mrdb.html



mrdc.html



mrdd.html



mrdm.html



mrdq.html



mrdr.html



mrdu.html



mrdw.html



mrdx.html



mrma.html



mrmb.html



mrmc.html



mrmd.html



mrmm.html



mrmq.html



mrmr.html



mrmu.html



mrmw.html



mrmx.html



mrqa.html



mrqb.html



mrqc.html



mrqd.html



mrqm.html



mrqq.html



mrqr.html



mrqu.html



mrqw.html



mrqx.html



mrra.html



mrrb.html



mrrc.html



mrrd.html



mrrm.html



mrrq.html



mrrr.html



mrru.html



mrrw.html



mrrx.html



mrua.html



mrub.html



mruc.html



mrud.html



mrum.html



mruq.html



mrur.html



mruu.html



mruw.html



mrux.html



mrwa.html



mrwb.html



mrwc.html



mrwd.html



mrwm.html



mrwq.html



mrwr.html



mrww.html



mrwu.html



mrwx.html



mrxa.html



mrxb.html



mrxc.html



mrxd.html



mrxm.html



mrxq.html



mrxr.html



mrxu.html



mrxw.html



mrxx.html



muaa.html



muab.html



muac.html



muad.html



muam.html



muaq.html


muaq.html


www.swf



muar.html



muau.html



muaw.html



muax.html



muba.html



mubb.html



mubc.html



mubd.html



mubm.html



mubq.html



mubr.html



mubu.html



mubw.html



muca.html



mubx.html



mucb.html



mucc.html



mucd.html



mucm.html



mucq.html



mucr.html



mucu.html



mucw.html



mucx.html



muda.html



mudb.html



mudc.html



mudd.html



mudm.html



mudq.html



mudr.html



mudu.html



mudw.html



mudx.html



muma.html



mumb.html



mumc.html



mumd.html



mumm.html



mumq.html



mumr.html



mumu.html



mumw.html



mumx.html



muqa.html



muqb.html



muqc.html



muqd.html



muqm.html



muqq.html



muqr.html



muqu.html



muqw.html



muqx.html



mura.html



murb.html



murc.html



murd.html



murm.html



murq.html



murr.html



muru.html



murw.html



murx.html



muua.html



muub.html



muuc.html



muud.html



muum.html



muuq.html



muuu.html



muur.html



muuw.html



muux.html



muwa.html



muwb.html



muwc.html



muwd.html



muwm.html



muwq.html



muwr.html



muwu.html



muww.html



muwx.html



muxa.html



muxb.html



muxc.html



muxd.html



muxm.html



muxq.html



muxr.html



muxx.html



mwaa.html



mwab.html



mwac.html



mwad.html



mwam.html



mwaq.html



mwar.html



mwau.html



mwaw.html



mwax.html



mwba.html



mwbb.html



mwbc.html



mwbd.html



mwbm.html



mwbq.html



mwbr.html



mwbu.html



mwbw.html



mwbx.html



mwca.html



mwcb.html



mwcc.html



mwcm.html



mwcd.html



mwcq.html



mwcr.html



mwcu.html



mwcw.html



mwcx.html



mwda.html



mwdd.html



mwdb.html



mwdc.html



mwdm.html



mwdq.html



mwdr.html



mwdu.html



mwdw.html



mwdx.html



mwma.html



mwmb.html



muxu.html



muxw.html


muxx.html


mwaa.html



mwab.html



mwac.html



mwad.html



mwam.html



mwaq.html



mwar.html



mwau.html



mwaw.html



mwax.html



mwba.html



mwbb.html



mwbc.html



mwbd.html



mwbm.html



mwbq.html



mwbr.html



mwbu.html



mwbw.html



mwbx.html



mwca.html



mwcb.html



mwcc.html



mwcd.html



mwcm.html



mwcq.html



mwcr.html



mwcu.html



mwcw.html



mwcx.html



mwda.html



mwdb.html



mwdc.html



mwdd.html



mwdm.html



mwdq.html



mwdr.html



mwdu.html



mwdw.html



mwdx.html



mwma.html



mwmb.html



mwmc.html



mwmd.html



mwmm.html



mwmq.html



mwmr.html



mwmu.html



mwmw.html



mwmx.html



mwqa.html



mwqb.html



mwqc.html



mwqd.html



mwqm.html



mwqq.html



mwqr.html



mwqu.html



mwqw.html



mwqx.html



mwra.html



mwrb.html



mwrc.html



mwrd.html



mwrq.html



mwrm.html



mwrr.html



mwru.html



mwrw.html



mwrx.html



mwua.html



mwub.html



mwuc.html



mwud.html



mwum.html



mwuq.html



mwur.html



mwuu.html



mwuw.html



mwux.html



mwwa.html



mwwb.html



mwwc.html



mwwd.html



mwwm.html



mwwq.html



mwwr.html



mwwu.html



mwww.html



mwwx.html



mwxa.html



mwxb.html



mwxc.html



mwxd.html



mwxm.html



mwxu.html



mwxw.html



mwxq.html



mwxr.html



mxaa.html



mxab.html



mxac.html



mxad.html



mxam.html



mxaq.html



mxar.html



mxau.html


mxaw.html


mxax.html



mxba.html



mxbb.html



mxbc.html



mxbd.html



mxbm.html



mxbq.html



mxbr.html



mxbu.html



mxbw.html



mxbx.html



mxca.html



mxcb.html



mxcc.html



mxcd.html



mxcm.html



mxcq.html



mxcr.html



mxcu.html



mxcw.html



mxcx.html



mxda.html



mxdb.html



mxdc.html



mxdd.html



mxdm.html



mxdq.html



mxdr.html



mxdu.html



mxdw.html



mxdx.html



mxma.html



mxmb.html



mxmc.html



mxmd.html



mxmm.html



mxmq.html



mxmr.html



mxmu.html



mxmw.html



mxmx.html



mxqa.html



mxqb.html



mxqc.html



mxqd.html



mxqm.html



mxqq.html



mxqr.html



mxqu.html



mxqw.html



mxqx.html



mxra.html



mxrb.html



mxrc.html



mxrd.html



mxrm.html



mxrq.html



mxrr.html



mxru.html



mxrw.html



mxrx.html



mxua.html



mxub.html



mxuc.html



mxud.html



mxum.html



mxuq.html



mxur.html



mxuu.html



mxuw.html



mxux.html



mxwa.html



mxwb.html



mxxr.html



mxxu.html



mxxw.html



mxxx.html



xaaa.html



xaab.html



xaac.html



xaad.html



xaam.html



xaaq.html



xaar.html



xaau.html



xaaw.html



xaax.html



xaba.html



xabb.html



xabc.html



xabd.html



xabm.html



xabq.html



xabr.html



xabu.html



xabw.html



xabx.html



xaca.html



xacb.html



xacc.html



xacd.html



xacm.html



xacq.html



xacr.html



xacu.html



xacw.html



xacx.html



xada.html



xadb.html



xadc.html



xadd.html



xadm.html



xadq.html



xadr.html



xadu.html



xadw.html



xadx.html



xama.html



xamb.html



xamc.html



xamd.html



xamm.html



xamq.html



xamr.html



xamu.html



xamw.html



xamx.html



xaqa.html



xaqb.html



xaqc.html



xaqd.html



xaqm.html



xaqq.html



xaqr.html



xaqu.html



xaqw.html



xaqx.html



xara.html



xarb.html



xarc.html



xard.html



xarm.html



xarq.html



xarr.html



xaru.html



xarw.html



xarx.html



xaua.html



xaub.html



xauc.html



xaud.html



xaum.html



xauq.html



xaur.html



xauu.html



xauw.html



xaux.html



xawa.html



xawb.html



xawc.html



xawd.html



xawm.html



xawq.html



xawr.html



xawu.html



xaww.html



xawx.html



xaxa.html



xaxb.html



xaxc.html



xaxd.html



xaxm.html



xaxq.html



xaxr.html



xaxu.html



xaxw.html



xaxx.html



xbaa.html



xbab.html



xbac.html



xbad.html



xbam.html



xbaq.html



xbar.html



xbau.html



xbaw.html



xbax.html



xbba.html



xbbb.html



xbbc.html



xbbd.html



xbbm.html



xbbq.html



xbbr.html



xbbu.html



xbbw.html



xbbx.html



xbca.html



xbcb.html



xbcc.html



xbcd.html



xbcm.html



xbcq.html



xbcr.html



xbcu.html



xbcx.html



xbcw.html



xbda.html



xbdb.html



xbdc.html



xbdd.html



xbdm.html



xbdq.html



xbdr.html



xbdu.html



xbdw.html



xbdx.html



xbma.html



xbmb.html



xbmc.html



xbmd.html



xbmm.html



xbmq.html



xbmr.html



xbmu.html



xbmw.html



xbmx.html



xbqa.html



xbqb.html



xbqc.html



xbqd.html



xbqm.html



xbqq.html



xbqr.html



xbqu.html



xbqw.html



xbqx.html



xbra.html



xbrb.html



xbrc.html



xbrd.html



xbrm.html



xbrq.html



xbrr.html



xbru.html



xbrw.html



xbrx.html



xbua.html



xbub.html



xbuc.html



xbud.html



xbum.html



xbuq.html



xbur.html



xbuu.html



xbuw.html



xbux.html



xbwa.html



xbwb.html



xbwc.html



xbwd.html



xbwm.html



xbwq.html



xbwr.html



xbwu.html



xbww.html



xbwx.html



xbxa.html



xbxb.html



xbxc.html



xbxd.html



xbxm.html



xbxq.html



xbxr.html



xbxu.html



xbxw.html



xbxx.html



xcaa.html



xcab.html



xcac.html



xcad.html



xcam.html



xcar.html



xcaq.html



xcau.html



xcaw.html



xcax.html



xcba.html



xcbb.html



xcbc.html



xcbd.html



xcbm.html



xcbq.html



xcbr.html



xcbu.html



xcbw.html



xcbx.html



xcca.html



xccb.html



xccc.html



xccd.html



xccm.html



xccq.html



xccr.html



xccu.html



xccw.html



xccx.html



xcda.html



xcdb.html



xcdc.html



xcdd.html



xcdm.html



xcdq.html



xcdr.html



xcdw.html



xcdu.html



xcdx.html



xcma.html



xcmb.html



xcmc.html



xcmd.html



xcmm.html



xcmq.html



xcmr.html



xcmu.html



xcmw.html



xcmx.html



xcqa.html



xcqb.html



xcqc.html



xcqd.html


Posted by werwe at July 5, 2006 11:12 AM | direct link

Just one observation. What's the current deficeit running at, in the trillions category? What's needed is more estate taxes, not less, given the income tax cuts everyone's gotten. That is, if one believes in operating a balanced budget.

Whatever happened to the "tax and spend" Democrats? Have they been replaced by "cut taxes and spend" Republicans. ;)

Posted by N.E.Hatfield at July 6, 2006 11:16 AM | direct link

Hey Verve, What's your malfunction?

Posted by N.E.Hatfield at July 6, 2006 01:06 PM | direct link

Posner made the point that most donations were given to organizations for services that the donor enjoys. I agree with this, and would add that many donations are not entirely voluntary. Some in fact appear to be coerced. Take my daughter's school, a high school, for example. Every few months it would send the parents a newsletter half of which is devoted to listing the names and amounts parents donated to the school. My wife and I donate to the school, we are however among the small donors and often feel inadequate for being listed among those who donate the minimal amount. Had we not been able to donate at all, I know we will feel embarrassed and very concerned. Embarrassed because we appear stingy. Concerned because we worry if the teachers would treat our daughter differently because her parents, who are named, are not as generous as others.

The result is every time we decide the amount to donate, we have to weigh it against not just the benefits to the school that my daugher enjoys, but also the potential level of embarrassment and if the amount's adequacy could adversely affect how my daugher is treated.

Perhaps, by making a big deal about his donation to the Gates foundation, Buffet had the undeclared objective of shaming the third richest man into giving up a portion of his wealth?

Posted by Yong at July 9, 2006 09:59 AM | direct link

I wonder about the precision of Poser's comments about the benefit to the acceptor of a donation due to the tax break. He said:

"The government's matching grant, in the form of a tax break (so if the donor is in the 30 percent bracket, the government in effect pays $3 for every $7 that he donates), reduces the cost of donation: it costs him only $7 to enrich his alma matter by $10."

When an alumnus donates $7 to his alma mater, the university received $7, not $10. The government loses $2.1 tax which it would have received had the donor paid income tax on the $7.

The result is $2.1 less for the government which it could use support other worthy causes, such as defense, build a stronger dam, or to educate and provide healthcare to the children of the poor who may then go on to serve the government such as by fighting wars.

Had the university been a for-profit organization that pays income tax, then it seems to be that Posner's statement would be accurate in that the university would need to make $10 in order to keep $7.

In my view, it is questionable, even objectionable, that the government should lose revenue because of donation to religious organizations and universities. Tax deduction should be allowed only for activities that the government is permitted but unable to support such as diaster relief.

Posted by Yong at July 9, 2006 10:26 AM | direct link

Yong
If a person makes $10 in income in a place with a 30% income tax, that person would normally pay $3 in taxes and keep $7. If instead the person donates all $10 to a charity, the money is not taxed in Judge Posner's scenario. Thus, the charity receives $10, while the person only loses $7 [the amount he would have otherwise kept], and the government loses $3.
Also, I doubt you will find many opponents to the government losing revenue. That is probably the best part of this whole scheme.

Posted by Haris at July 9, 2006 04:17 PM | direct link

Post a comment




Remember Me?

Are you a spam bot? If not, type "human" here:


(you may use HTML tags for style)

 
bottom