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

