Lmao I can barely put away anything for retirement or savings each check.
Try calling the 20 people at the top who could afford to chip in a donation for like every single person in the country and it'd be pocket change to them. Why are they asking us?
Top marginal tax rates used to be over 90 percent.....perhaps if we returned to that then we would not need to have all these charities begging the already cash strapped public.
Why? Banks manage the risk by limiting the amount you can borrow (usually 50-75% of portfolio depending on assets owned) It's no different than a HELOC really.
a) I have NO faith in loan officers to properly limit risk. Historically, they have shown over and over again that without regulation, they WILL take risky loans. 2008 wasn't that long ago my dude.
b) HELOCs are backed by the house itself as collateral. If they default the bank just takes the house. If a rich person defaults on their loan what does the bank do with now worthless stocks?
like when the AI bubble pops all those assets are going to crash hard and those loans will be underwater, risking the financial stability of the bank if not entire system. You mention in your post that loans are limited to "50% of the value of the assets" but you fail to relaize that some stocks, like Tesla and Nvidia, are marked by a lot of market watchers as insanely overvalued to the point that if they only crash by 50% that would be considered a win because most expact it to crash down to even 10% of its current valuation.
While there's some world where the stocks tank 90% it's highly unlikely, especially overnight.
The bank would rather take the stocks which are immediately liquid and can be sold for FMV the day they take them vs an expensive foreclosure process with months of delay while homeowners fail to maintain the home and the housing market continues to crash (a la 2008.)
There is no world where a bank taking over stocks from a rich person defaulting on a loan goes smoothly. Like taking a house from default is an established process and most homeowners have little knowledge or resources to fight against it.
But what is the established process for taking over stocks? Especially when those stocks confer ownership/voting rights. That isn't even to mention that rich people know how to fight and gum up the works.
I mean, a person who uses collateral for a loan and that collateral loses value is still liable for the loan. So the bank can seize assets that the person owns. Or if all their assets are zeroed out there’s a well established bankruptcy process they can go through. And this isn’t mom and pop losing their homes like 2008. There’s no government bail out coming if the banks somehow are insolvent based on loans to billionaires (which isn’t even a feasible scenario anyway)
Pair that with forced stock and asset sale at death and no step up basis and you might be getting somewhere.
These people can afford to spend what thousands of people earn in their lifetimes just on finding tax loopholes or buying the loophole directly via politicians.
The very rich are able to take out loans against their assets. They then spend the money from the loan for their expenses, and when they make payments on the loan, they’re able to make a tax deduction for that. Without ever having to sell their assets. And then when they die, their estate will settle those loans and anything left over will be given tax-free to their heirs because there is no capital gain with step up asset evaluation. The rich people have an infinite money hack.
And what I've learned in my years on this planet is that when something like higher tax rates for the rich goes away, or Citizens United is passed, you don't get those rights back. The rich get richer, and they buy elections, and the rest of us are just screwed.
The Southern Strategy really fucked us all in the name of not being as overtly racist but changing the system to hurt minorities even if poor white people suffered as well. Republicans actively made America worse just to be racist.
That is an often repeated but incorrect statement. Well, technically, it is correct, but it doesn’t support your argument. Due to the structuring of marginal tax rates, they would have paid less on the first several thousand and far more the more they made. And as a majority don’t make that much or only make slightly more, yes the average effective tax rate is much lower. But the taxes on the super rich were not.
This is often cited as an argument against higher taxes (the first result when you look up marginal tax rates from that period is usually The Tax Foundation, a right wing “think tank” that explicitly opposes taxes). They use the 1% as their definition of rich, even though the top 1% was not the highest marginal tax bracket.
Even The Tax Foundation’s article needs to obfuscate because they’re lying. At the bottom, in a footnote of the their article “Taxes on the Rich Were Not That Much Higher in the 1950s,” they explicitly state “ It is worth noting that, per the Piketty, Saez, and Zucman data, the tax rates of the top 0.1 and 0.01 percent of taxpayers have dropped substantially since the 1950s.”
During the 1950s, the top 1 percent of taxpayers paid an average effective income tax rate of approximately 16.9%.
In 1962, the top marginal tax was 91%, yet the average effective rate for the top 1% was roughly 16.1% in federal and payroll taxes
"The tax rates " doesn't specify marginal or effective.....
"
During the 1950s, the top 1 percent of taxpayers paid an average effective income tax rate of approximately 16.9%.
In 1962, the top marginal tax was 91%, yet the average effective rate for the top 1% was roughly 16.1% in federal and payroll taxes"
You said “TODAY” then quote the 50s vs 1962. What a fucking joke. Incomes are not comparable, because the ultra wealthy have figured out how to underreport incomes. The reality is, if Regan/ Bush tax cuts hadn’t been repealed, we wouldn’t have a deficit in 2025 of $1.8T. https://www.americanprogress.org/article/tax-cuts-are-primarily-responsible-for-the-increasing-debt-ratio/
Um..what ? Did you read anything written, at all?.
Edit : I gVe two data points when the marginal rates were around that 90% mark.. (versus today lol, which are higher than during that era)....sorry reading is based for you
People are clamoring for 90% tax rates as if 90% marginal rates came into play at all
EFFEVTIVE tax rates are what mattered.. first they just kept raising the marginal rate to get the effective rate to increase (still lower than the effective rates today).. they realize that wasn't working, you can set the rate at 100% but if there are huge loopholes it doesnt matter....so Instead they closed the giant loop holes, and made the marginal rate more reasonable..the net result was a HIGHER effective rate DESPITE the marginal rate being lower
Anyone who quotes the 90% rate as if we should go back to it with today's tax laws, has no clue what they are talking about . They make it clear that their depth of knowledge boils down to, 90> 40
You don’t understand the basics of tax law or economics - why do you think it’s possible to have a $1T pay package? None of that “income” is taxed, and the corporation didn’t pay taxes either. Effective tax rates are much lower today than the 1950s-1960s. Go learn some basics, you’re embarrassing yourself.
Effective tax rates are NOT lower today than they are back then ,stop lying. The IRS publishes this data every single year, go look at it
Effevtive tac rates are up,busy because you want to find specific cases of some billionaires using extensive tax avoidance strategies today does not mean they weren't doing the same before.. in fact the loopholes in the 90% era were so gaping wide, they were,
That's why efective rates went UP despite marginal rates coming down, they closed those loop holes
Stop lying and making up BS
And RSUs are taxed as ordinary income when they vest, stop telling other people they don't know what they are talking about when it is YOU
If you tax income it's never going to fix the problem. People will just structure their businesses so that they continually reinvest in the business, purchase other investments through their business if they cant find a use for the cash, and defer income indefinitely. If a business generates more income than is needed by the owner, the excess can increase the rate of compounding and allow consolidation and asset accumulation. Furthermore, if equity returns exceeds the cost to borrow, there is no incentive to ever take a salary because you can just borrow against assets (which you know are going to grow faster than the interest cost) and settle your debts after you die from your estate without paying tax. Oh added bonus, your children then inherit a minimum $28 million without paying any tax whatsoever with the cost basis stepped up so all those deferred taxes from capital gains just disappear into the aether.
Taxing income is the wrong angle entirely. We need to tax net worth. Not so much that it eats all investment returns, but also not so little that we can't fund strong social programs, education, etc. It's extremely easy to structure things in a way such that you can avoid taking income from assets, but its very hard to structure things in a way that you dont own your own wealth without losing control and ownership over it.
Except you’re only getting taxed at that rate on whatever amount is over that limit. If you only make $1 over that limit, that rate only applies to that $1. That’s how marginal tax rates work. Everything below the limit still gets taxed at the lower rate.
Remember it’s a marginal rate. So your income up to, say, 500k or wherever the bracket would start would be taxed at much lower rates, and the 70% or whatever would only apply to income above that threshold that most people would consider absolutely rich.
We shouldn’t be taxing regular income, we should have a wealth tax. Regular people who have real estate as a large part of their expenses / wealth already pay wealth tax via real estate taxes (it’s factored into your rent if you aren’t a property owner). People with hundreds of millions of dollars should pay wealth tax too
> Try calling the 20 people at the top who could afford to chip in a donation for like every single person in the country and it'd be pocket change to them. Why are they asking us?
Yeah. Someone had a great tweet about that. They said "what are billionaires doing? If I had that much money, I'd be like Batman, or a hero of some kind. Childhood hunger? Done. Homeless veterans? Not on my watch!"
Yet those of us laying our bills out on the table trying to balance them all are expected to be the ones to fund charities, while the human embodiments of greed like Musk are out there screaming and suing to get more and more and more for themselves, literally cheering on human misery while they sit on their hoards of wealth.
Musk is worth $750 billion and exclusively gives to a charity that does nothing else but fund a private school for his own children. If you've ever given anyone in need a dollar, you're already far more charitable.
If that is really the case it's not deductible as a charitable expense since it's a directed benefit back to himself. And you know his taxes are under a microscope at the IRS.
That's not true. You can donate to a school, you don't get it negated just because your kid goes there too. He couldn't give just his kid a scholarship or something of course, but if it's to the school as a whole, it still counts as a charitable donation.
The language was private school for his own children so a bit vague and i think it'ssafe to say the person i was replyjng to was claiming Elon was breaking some rules.. Now if the funds are shared across all students equally, then yes, deductible. But only if he's also paying the same tuition as other parents.
This is largely why I've stopped giving to charity. Poverty is really not our problem to solve, and if anything it's just another capitalist scam where some CEO gets a large slice of the pie meanwhile the actual charity gets crumbles
That’s a pretty unhinged take. The government should definitely provide more support, but charities are incredibly important and millions of people rely on them.
The red cross raised half a billion dollars to rebuild Haiti and years later, they wound up building a grand total of six homes. They spent more on private jet fuel during that period.
the economy morphed 50k slowly into 25k and convinced you to believe it's still 50
The walnut is a pecan, the pecan is a cashew, the cashew is an almond, the almond is a peanut, the peanut is a sunflower seed, the sunflower seed is a sesame seed, the sesame seed is a poppy seed, etc.
Instead of actual inflation we should just collect people's money each month. So at the end of each month you get a payment slip. See how people would react then
Exactly. I had to change jobs due to a relocation this year, and had the hardest time I have ever had by far getting a new one. My giving isn’t happening this year, unfortunately. The economy just can’t support it.
Never do that. They’re just using your money to increase their tax breaks. If you’re going to donate, just send it directly to the charity yourself. These stores are just guilting people into doing it so they don’t seem like bad people in public.
>could afford to chip in a donation for like every single person in the country and it'd be pocket change to them
There are over 350 million people in the US. A $100 donation for each person would be over $35 billion dollars. Elon Musk had a total of around $428 billion in assets. Even for him your suggestion would be a hell of a lot more than pocket change. Elon couldn't even get that much money in cash if he wanted to give it out because he would have to find people with $35 billion in cash to buy his assets.
The 20th richest in the US is worth $52 billion. You're demanding he give away over half of his worth. So definitely not pocket change. He again, just like Musk, would struggle to find buyers for his assets with that $35 billion in cash to make the purchase.Source for wealth estimates.
> The 20th richest in the US is worth $52 billion. You're demanding he give away over half of his worth.
He would still be a billionaire many times over. There is no material difference in lifestyle between having a billion dollars and 25 billion dollars. He would still be able to own multiple houses and yachts… and the other half could be spent to significantly improve the lives of many others (like feeding starving children).
So you're saying probably just 3 - maybe the bottom three - of the top 20 richest people could probably equal the amount of all Americans (including children) donated $100? Amazing, yes, especially when added with Elon's hypothetical 42.8 billion 1% donation.
Imagine trying to evoke empathy for billionaire scumbag Elon Musk by saying "he's so poor if he gave everyone in the country $100 he'd ONLY have $393 Billion left!"
Thanks for demonstrating the entire point, numbskull.
Where'd I say for each one of them? What I said was if they collectively paid the same rate back to society that they did in the earlier 20th century, maybe we wouldn't need so many damn charities. Try $35b and divide it by 20....
Also of you want to get granular over details, the articles is talking working adults. There are NOT 350m working adults in the US. I don't think babies have $100 lol
You're the one who claimed "for like every single person in the country". Instead of moving the goal posts after making claims, you should do some basic math before posting.
Beginning next year (in 2026), an individual taxpayer will be able to deduct up to $1000 in charitable contributions on their federal income taxes without having to itemize. Most people - by a significant margin - do not itemize, as the threshold for doing so has risen. So for this year, donations can't be deducted from tax returns unless a taxpayer itemizes. People who are aware of this are likely waiting for 2026 to roll around.
Yes. Taxpayers will not be required to itemize in order to deduct the cash contributions made to charitable organizations, up to $1000. Donations have to be in monetary form - meaning donated goods do not count. As usual, the organization has to have the appropriate IRS designation of 501c3, and obviously taxpayers need to keep their receipts.
Wonder if you can deduct contributions made to your kids school fundraisers, like pay the buyout for their sports booster club which is usually a 501c3
Right, but it does give you more control where that money goes if there’s a cause you believe strongly in or if you don’t have faith in this federal government spending the money well.
Especially when we’re looking for excuses to invade Venezuela.
It means that a wealthy person can donate more money for less. At the top bracket a person can donate $1000 for $630, whereas someone who only makes $8k a year will have to pay $1000 to donate $1000.
Given that most of these donations are either going to religious businesses, or straight up fabrications, I think this system is completely and totally fucked. I do not want to be subsidizing rich people giving religious businesses more money to do evil things and make the world a worse place.
It's a deduction not a credit, so it's not dollar-for-dollar.
It's a win in that charitable deductions were essentially eliminated during Trump's first term (when the standard deduction was increased and charitable contributions became deductible only if a taxpayer itemized). When people no longer had that extra little incentive to donate, it had a negative impact on charitable orgs.
It's subsidizing rich people to donate to religious businesses, especially those that proselytize or push a certain conservative agenda. Notice that: a person who makes like $9k a year will pay $1000 to donate $1000 to NPR, whereas someone making $900k per year gets to donate $1000 to Galactic Church of Jesus Christ of Yesteryear Saints for only $630. Why are we subsidizing rich people's donations to organizations with little oversight, many of which are religious businesses that end up using that money down the chain pushing a particular political or religious ideology? They can afford to donate without a subsidy, Im sorry but this system is completely ridiculous.
NPR, ACLU, FIRE, Sierra Club, Environmental Defense Fund, Nature Conservancy, local Botanic Garden, local Tool Library, local Food Pantry. These are all non-religious organizations I donate to regularly and give more due to tax deductions.
What religious charity are you so offended by? My guess is they get a small sliver of the tax deductible donations.
Would you rather: donate $1000 to charity and not be able to reduce your taxable income by $1000? Or donate to charity AND be able to reduce your taxable income by $1000?
Things used to be different. The tax code got a big shake up during Trump's first disasterm. The standard deduction was increased, but a lot of deductions were removed.
The TCJA of 2017 fucked charities. It raised the standard deduction up to a point that made any tax benefits to donations for 90% of Americans pointless.
This is another Republican special. They fuck something up and then go back and fix it years later and voters think "oh wow thank you!".
Completely anecdotal, so take this with a grain of salt.
The organization I used to work for (almost 14,000 employees, the vast majority earning blue and white collar wages for my area) has had a yearly donation drive for decades. Every year there’s an organized effort to solicit donations from employees. Several weeks of activity…emails, events, incentives, etc. I recently learned the results of the most recent drive that ended in September/October, and they were contextually bad enough that, for me, they spoke to the more widespread economic difficulties that blue and white collar workers are experiencing.
This past drive was the least successful I can recall in over a decade. Even when wages were much lower (before lots of employees got significant pay raises during and after Covid), employees were donating more than this past year. What’s also pretty telling is that this year it appears that, unlike prior years, the organization is not shouting the results of the drive from the rooftops. Compared to prior years, they’re keeping things low key.
I know exactly what you're talking about. After I saw this org at a local meeting in support of our main utility provider rasing rates by 25% I was done donating to them. Turns out this utility company donated large sums to them so they helped them to raise rates on everyone in the area. I will never donate to them again, it was already scummy going after nonprofit employees for money
I help run a rural food pantry which usually gets a few hundred in donations from the public per month. We got $27,000 in donations in November. It was unbelievable.
we're so small we don't even take online donations yet 😂 thank you for asking though. I joined the board as the only member under 65 and we're making progress!
definitely donate to second harvest in our place. they are the only reason we are able to feed 350 families per week in rural Appalachia. we're an affiliate.
The problem is Trump also cancelled a shit ton of aid for the United States (I’m not talking about usaid but aid that goes to food banks across the country) back in April. There may have been more after.
The tax laws changed a few years ago so unless you’re making huge contributions, you basically can’t deduct your charitable contributions anymore. That means there’s no reason to donate at the last minute to get it in under the year end deadline.
This is changing in 2026. People who take the standard deduction will be able to deduct an extra $1,000 for charitable donations. I'm not sure how long that's going to last, though.
I mean the tax law changed so the standard deduction is much higher, meaning more people take that instead of itemizing- but charitable contributions were always a very small part of itemized deductions compared to SALT/mortgage interest. You don't need to make huge contributions, you need to own a home and pay a lot of mortgage interest.
The reason people usually donated "at the last minute" was more just holiday giving. Taxwise it doesn't matter if you donate in March or on Dec 31 and as an accountant, "give a bunch to charity" has never been a tax avoidance strategy unless we're talking about appreciated assets. But the holiday season has always been associated with charitable giving, a lot of charities run aggressive pledge drives this time of year, charitable foundations will do all their big giving... heck just as someone who volunteers with local charities, all year long I can schedule myself a volunteer shift whenever I please until November-December when they're completely overwhelmed with people wanting to volunteer all of a sudden. Just like gyms are always packed in January.
For a very large swath of Americans it still makes sense to plan your giving with your taxes. Just higher-earning folks. Doctors, lawyers, business executives, engineers.
I can’t afford christmas let alone donations. I didn’t buy anything and told people not to buy for me, I can only image how hard it os right now for folks worse off than me and not be able to have help.
Most US adults aren’t making year end charitable contributions?
I wonder why, maybe it’s because the bottom 50% of people have 2.5% of the wealth and the top 1% owns 30% of the wealth. I wonder how much Elon or Bezos are donating at the end of the year, my guess is zero like usual
The raised the standard deduction and depressed wages, there’s no end of year incentive anymore to donate because it doesn’t help with taxes like it used to. And no one can afford to donate after the compounding inflation we’ve had for the last 5 years
A lot of them also do donate themselves. But it just so happens that rounding up at the register is an easy and convenient way for people to donate money that they otherwise might not
Wait till next year when the tax code becomes more favorable towards charitable donations
The cap on SALT is rising from 10K to 40K so a lot more people will be able to itemize their deductions making those charitable donations tax deductible for those who itemize.
Also, we are adding a new $1,000 limit for people who donate without itemizing.
Unfortunately the instability of the economy and manic behavior of the administration has caused us to pause charitable giving in exchange for hedging our finances. I feel horrible about it but this is the byproduct of a Trump economy.
It's because I am the one in need of charitable donations. But seriously, I thought we've done away with the covid era charitable contribution? You need to itemized in order to get that and common folks don't even do itemized deductions
Lol donations. Bezos and Musk could, in one wave of their hands, take care of donations for everyone for the next 20 years. And not feel a blip on their radars either.
Let's not undercut their wealth: they could end world hunger with a wave of their hand and still none of their descendants would ever have to get a job.
That's not really true, hunger across the globe is not an overall food problem its almost always a logistics problem with many causes. For example its very unlikely the hunger in stateless nations can be solved because they are so unstable.
Useless article, absolutely no context as to what is typical. I’m guessing this is true every year, but again I don’t know because the article provides no context.
I usually donate something every year, but not this year. I haven't had a job since Dec '24 (software engineer), and I'm burning through savings and some retirement just trying to support my family. If I can get a job soon, I can go back to my charitable ways. Until then, I have to look out for myself.
Companies don’t give bonuses until end of Q1 after financial warnings anymore, and for those who are capable of year-end donations to include for tax benefits, their accountant probably already has it baked in. Why would people make year end donations vs early year?
Could this be a symptom of a capitalist economy that has run amuck and no longer pays wages proportional to the production of its workers? No, it must be those pesky non-boomer generations for not giving more at checkout lines. How dare we not make donations when prompted by the multi-billion dollar corporations.
Something to think about, when they changed the tax code for the original Trump tax cuts, they dramatically increased the standard deduction and also took away a bunch of potential deductions that people had. The idea was it would mostly balance out. In some ways it's easier, you just check the standard deduction box. However now you have a lot of people that just do the standard deduction, and you get no benefit for a charitable contribution. You have to contribute enough to go over what your standard deduction would be with your other deductions and most people don't meet that threshold.
Why doesn't Elon Musk make a $100 donation to charity on my behalf? While he's at it, why doesn't he make a $100 donation to charity for every single person in the United States of America? That would only cost him ~35 billion dollars which still keeps him as one of the richest men in human history. Also, he gets a tax refund for charitable donations anyway. He could snap his fingers and do that today and he's still richer than Andrew Carnegie.
Let's stop asking why regular people aren't doing enough. Why aren't the billionaire class donation millions of dollars to charity every single month?
Oh no! Wont someone think of all the poor 501c3s!?
Seriously this is what passes for fucking journalism? Motherfuckers can barefly afford groceries and AP-NORC like: hey y'all people arent making year end donations!
I don’t think asking anyone making less than 170k a year, for even $5 extra towards a donation makes any sense at all. Theres enough wealthy people out there that can donate. I’m not playing your games anymore.
Im living paycheck to paycheck just trying to afford my Healthcare so I dont die. Was sure doing alot better under the previous administration. Alot of others around me are still wondering when the country will be great again. Not seeing it.
Tbh how much of the "percentage " goes to charity?
If you donate to one that gets heavily involved in politics, it's not really a charity much anymore. Im holding back because everything could go to absolute shit in a year and we will all need charity. Keeping my $$ for my charity, me.
Company took away a day of PTO, reduced 403(b) matching, and raised my contribution for healthcare, so I gotta claw it back somehow. Charity was first to go. Sorry, local cat shelter.
I can barely afford food and I am on the brink of needing the food bank. I can safely assume a lot of people are in the exact same position. It doesn’t feel great when you can barely afford food.
It's because most adults are one missed paycheck away from needing charitable contributions themselves. Didn't the Fed say that most adults can't cover a $400 expense back in 2020? I'm sure that figure is only smaller now.
Donations are to be personal expense. 501c can fk right off for people who donate. You put money in the cup and keep walking. Whether it’s $1 or $5k. No reason to be greedy and expect some deduction in return for the donation.
Like Mitch hedberg and the donut. “I gave you money and you give me donut, no reason to bring paper and ink into it”
As someone who is a treasurer for a non profit in my spare time, this is definitely true. The drop off after Covid has been astounding. People spent time with themselves during covid and decided they didn't want to engage with the world anymore in any sort of positive way. It's very sad.
it's been 5 straight years of real inflation (not CPI, not CPI-U, not PPI, but the actual cost of living that average people are actually experiencing in the real world) exceeding cost of living raises for the average person. I work in a state with higher than average inflation. Simple example, all of our healthcare costs increased by about 20% this year while simultaneously decreasing the coinsurance from 80% to 70% that our health insurer pays out. The premium increased massively, the deductibles increased significantly (especially now that they have a separate deductible for each individual in the family) maximum out of pocket increased massively, and the amount we pay out of pocket after hitting the deductible has increased massively (literally being expected to pay 50% than we were for our portion). Normally when prices increase, you at least get something in exchange for it. We have been given worse everything, while being told that we need to pay more because we were underpaying before.
Meanwhile, the average employee saw a generous yearly increase of 2.5% in their salary. In a state where we are seeing actual cost of living increases between 8 and 12%. It's a cruel joke.
Rich people have become so greedy with the ruthless need to push all costs onto people that work for a living, and by that token have forced us to become greedy so that we can stretch out what was enough to live off and still be able to save for the inevitable job loss that results in being out of work for 6 to 18 months with a non-existent social safety net. the hoops one must jump through to apply for and receive unemployment assistance are so massive and it pays so little that a lot of people do not even waste their time trying to get it, because they know that it's much easier just skipping dinner than expending the extra effort to get $200 a week unemployment assistance. It's pissing in the wind.
Yes. With the health insurance example I gave, nearly 100% of employees I work with have taken a paycut, even if they got the maximum raise of 4%. A lot of people complain about this, but we are told there is nothing that can be done, all states have increased their rates due to health care costs increasing and the risk pool getting riskier due to reasons. In my case it's been bad but if I had children it would be so much worse. A lot of my coworkers are paying hundreds of dollars a month for what amounts to catastrophic insurance, which used to be free for employees and a couple hundred extra for a family per month, to now paying almost $1000 a month in premiums for insurance that doesn't even start paying until several thousands of dollars in deductibles are paid. The only value in this insurance is negotiated rates that are 20 to 30% cheaper than whatever the sticker price is in most cases, and then occasionally bringing down some banal essential medication that would normally cost $450 a month down to $12 or bringing down some lab tests that get charged at $1200 down to $31. Stupid shit like that. Beyond that, the remaining value is having a maximum out of pocket that caps a family to paying only $18k a year out of pocket on top of the premium, so at least the worst financial damage in a single year will be paying out $30k in combined premiums and out of pocket medical expense. It's just bankruptcy protection. I personally have a medication that costs $12 a month, but I have to see a doctor every 3 months to get the prescription refilled. We literally talk about nothing, he asks how my past few months have been, have I travelled, blah blah blah, and then finally "how are you doing with the medication" so I can answer "same as before" and then he writes me the prescription. I get a bill in the mail for $230 every time we have to do this.
The medical system and insurance system in this country is beyond fucked. I shouldn't need to pay a guy $230 for us to chit chat about the weather and travel so that he can copy paste the same prescription I've had for 9 years. If I were a low income person, this alone would ruin my life. I can "afford" (not really, more like I can tolerate) to pay this idiot $1k a year for 20 minutes worth of zoom meetings to get a prescription refill. a lot of people cant though.
we are so cooked. no joke, even being a multi millionaire in this country is anxiety inducing if the number of millions is less than 5. At 5 you're not out of the woods, this is just breathing room. You can't relax until you reach 10+ million and even then you have to mitigate all the risks that can still make you bankrupt via lawsuits, medical debts or a medical emergency. it's constant anxiety that you can be broke at any moment for an arbitrary stupid reason that isn't your fault. it feels like cultivating this environment is deliberate.
Wtf is wrong with people trying to get tax breaks for donations??? Gotta be the greediest concept of them all. You donate and that’s it. There is no reason to file anything and expect something back. That is what donating is. “Hey I got this I don’t need and looks like you might… but I gotta make sure I get my tax break tho so give me a receipt”. Get these people out of the same society as me. Disgusting.
You don’t seem to understand that claiming deserved deductions does not take anything from charities. If it’s greed not to give the government what isn’t owed, are you greedy for not giving the government everything that you own?
It’s no different than putting money into a homeless person cup. Are people writing that off too? Hope not. Put the money in the cup and keep walking. Drop the clothes off keep walking. Write the check and keep walking. It’s that easy.
You are so wrong. If I’m donating 4+ figures to a 501c, it is not at all like dropping change in a cup of some rando. IDK what you’re smoking but it’s not helping you. You ignored my boundary and jeep doubling down so you are blocked. Bye
Claiming the deduction is the greed. Expecting something for donating something to someone is the greed. It’s giving. You gave them what they asked for, the deal is done. Mitch Hedberg has a piece that directly relates to this..
Mitch Hedberg on Doughnuts:
“I bought a doughnut and they gave me a receipt for the doughnut. I don't need a receipt for a doughnut. I'll just give you the money, you give me the doughnut. End of transaction. We don't need to bring ink and paper into this.”
Because not all donations are equal. There are organizations that are 503c that do objectively evil shit with the donated money, particularly religious businesses that masquerade as charitable organizations that help needy people. These people can spend money with nearly no oversight and no visibility or accountability what it is being used for. It could be used for paying for the car wash on the luxury vehicle the church leader drives (or pay the car payment, because its a church expense of course and he needs to get to work, and someone of his stature cant spread the good word driving a Camry so you know it's got to be a fully upgraded Cadillac)
I'm probably just being cycnical, but after watching videos of people calling evangelical churches and asking for food assistance for their hungry baby and getting turned down or hung up on over and over and over again, I think these kind of deductions are a nod and a wink toward people that want to use a religious charity to do a small amount of grift, as a treat. It makes the plebs feel like they're getting in on the action lying about a max limit donation that lets them pocket another $220 in their tax refund.
A donation isn’t to be about the money. At all. Someone donates money yes but it’s more of an object that the org or people needed. Whether it’s dropping clothes off at goodwill at 2am or donating money. It’s just donating. Doesn’t need to be anything more to it than that. If a need for funds is approved then they can do what’s needed with the donations. If you agree with who you’re donating too then it shouldn’t matter what they do with it. That’s why it’s important that morals are put first before dollars. It’s similar to people who complain about meta yet still have accounts and hold shares with them. Gotta put the money where the mouth is. If you agree with the org then you donate.. at the cost of it may affect one’s image if the people do shady things.
Yeah we shouldn't be allowing religious institutions 501c3s unless they can prove that they're not a money laundering business (or other criminal operation) that has slapped a religion on the front to legitimize the criminal nature of what theyre doing. "if you agree with the org then you donate" is stupidity if you allow any criminal organization to form an opaque structure that exists primarily to enrich the organizers and executives of the criminal enterprise.
Church should be paying taxes and should be treated like any other book club. All entities that pay taxes should be audited every year. Computers have more than enough power to do that.
I know that people are feeling squeezed and everything, but it’s embarrassing that almost a third of our country doesn’t donate anything at all to charity. Figured it was gonna be much lower than that
A little more than a quarter of US citizens don’t have $1000 in savings in the event of an emergency expenditure, honestly this doesn’t surprise me one bit.
They shouldn’t need to donate! Richest country in the world should take care of its people without needing charity. WTF, why can’t we fucking feed people instead of begging for donations?
In civilized society there is no charity. It shouldn't even exist and the fact that people expect others to give to charity shows how sick this society is. If a charity is needed, that means we need our lawmakers to properly pass bills and allocate funding to that particular need, and then raise the taxes to fund it.
Give 10% to the Lord first. Then the rest is yours to spend as needed. That's the way to do it. You take it off the top, not wait until you see what's leftover. Prioritize! Giving at my church is surpassing last year's 2024 numbers and more than the projected 2025 estimates. People are doing well!
Solid-Mud-8430 | a day ago
Lmao I can barely put away anything for retirement or savings each check.
Try calling the 20 people at the top who could afford to chip in a donation for like every single person in the country and it'd be pocket change to them. Why are they asking us?
Earth_34_34 | a day ago
Top marginal tax rates used to be over 90 percent.....perhaps if we returned to that then we would not need to have all these charities begging the already cash strapped public.
RoyStrokes | a day ago
Reagan fucked us. It was iirc at least 70% from WW1 to Reagan
bonerland11 | a day ago
The very rich aren't collecting an income, they're leveraging debt versus company stock.
grandmawaffles | a day ago
This is why unrealized stock gains shouldn’t be able to be used for loans.
Geno0wl | a day ago
It should be generally illegal to use volatile assets like stocks for loan collateral in the first place
snark42 | a day ago
Why? Banks manage the risk by limiting the amount you can borrow (usually 50-75% of portfolio depending on assets owned) It's no different than a HELOC really.
Geno0wl | a day ago
a) I have NO faith in loan officers to properly limit risk. Historically, they have shown over and over again that without regulation, they WILL take risky loans. 2008 wasn't that long ago my dude.
b) HELOCs are backed by the house itself as collateral. If they default the bank just takes the house. If a rich person defaults on their loan what does the bank do with now worthless stocks?
like when the AI bubble pops all those assets are going to crash hard and those loans will be underwater, risking the financial stability of the bank if not entire system. You mention in your post that loans are limited to "50% of the value of the assets" but you fail to relaize that some stocks, like Tesla and Nvidia, are marked by a lot of market watchers as insanely overvalued to the point that if they only crash by 50% that would be considered a win because most expact it to crash down to even 10% of its current valuation.
snark42 | a day ago
While there's some world where the stocks tank 90% it's highly unlikely, especially overnight.
The bank would rather take the stocks which are immediately liquid and can be sold for FMV the day they take them vs an expensive foreclosure process with months of delay while homeowners fail to maintain the home and the housing market continues to crash (a la 2008.)
Geno0wl | a day ago
There is no world where a bank taking over stocks from a rich person defaulting on a loan goes smoothly. Like taking a house from default is an established process and most homeowners have little knowledge or resources to fight against it.
But what is the established process for taking over stocks? Especially when those stocks confer ownership/voting rights. That isn't even to mention that rich people know how to fight and gum up the works.
moonlandings | a day ago
I mean, a person who uses collateral for a loan and that collateral loses value is still liable for the loan. So the bank can seize assets that the person owns. Or if all their assets are zeroed out there’s a well established bankruptcy process they can go through. And this isn’t mom and pop losing their homes like 2008. There’s no government bail out coming if the banks somehow are insolvent based on loans to billionaires (which isn’t even a feasible scenario anyway)
grandmawaffles | a day ago
Not when they get to write it off. Seems weird someone can go bankrupt from this but not student loans.
grandmawaffles | a day ago
Oh absolutely
dfsw | a day ago
then they wont mind a 90% tax rate right?
RobinU2 | a day ago
Pair that with forced stock and asset sale at death and no step up basis and you might be getting somewhere.
These people can afford to spend what thousands of people earn in their lifetimes just on finding tax loopholes or buying the loophole directly via politicians.
bonerland11 | a day ago
Then they just park their money into non profits which they manage. Increasing the effective tax brackets isn't going to affect America's richest.
Rivster79 | a day ago
They won’t. Because on paper their income is like $1.
dfsw | a day ago
Great lets pass it then, you can hid a ton of wealth behind stock grants and such but a good deal is still taxed at income.
RoyStrokes | a day ago
I’m not a dumbass, I know this, but I was giving additional info to the comment I replied too, which was not about stocks.
Sharticus123 | a day ago
Then it’s time to tax the stock market.
CaptainZeroDark30 | a day ago
The very rich are able to take out loans against their assets. They then spend the money from the loan for their expenses, and when they make payments on the loan, they’re able to make a tax deduction for that. Without ever having to sell their assets. And then when they die, their estate will settle those loans and anything left over will be given tax-free to their heirs because there is no capital gain with step up asset evaluation. The rich people have an infinite money hack.
exgiexpcv | a day ago
And what I've learned in my years on this planet is that when something like higher tax rates for the rich goes away, or Citizens United is passed, you don't get those rights back. The rich get richer, and they buy elections, and the rest of us are just screwed.
RoyStrokes | a day ago
100%
HedonisticFrog | 22 hours ago
The Southern Strategy really fucked us all in the name of not being as overtly racist but changing the system to hurt minorities even if poor white people suffered as well. Republicans actively made America worse just to be racist.
akmalhot | a day ago
The effective tax rate in the 90% marginal rate days was lower than it is today .
People really need to stop referencing that like it's any kind of reality for today's world
You can make the top rate 1000% it does not matter what matters is the whole package and effective rate
Edit :
During the 1950s, the top 1 percent of taxpayers paid an average effective income tax rate of approximately 16.9%.
In 1962, the top marginal tax was 91%, yet the average effective rate for the top 1% was roughly 16.1% in federal and payroll taxes
SmurfSmiter | a day ago
That is an often repeated but incorrect statement. Well, technically, it is correct, but it doesn’t support your argument. Due to the structuring of marginal tax rates, they would have paid less on the first several thousand and far more the more they made. And as a majority don’t make that much or only make slightly more, yes the average effective tax rate is much lower. But the taxes on the super rich were not.
This is often cited as an argument against higher taxes (the first result when you look up marginal tax rates from that period is usually The Tax Foundation, a right wing “think tank” that explicitly opposes taxes). They use the 1% as their definition of rich, even though the top 1% was not the highest marginal tax bracket.
Even The Tax Foundation’s article needs to obfuscate because they’re lying. At the bottom, in a footnote of the their article “Taxes on the Rich Were Not That Much Higher in the 1950s,” they explicitly state “ It is worth noting that, per the Piketty, Saez, and Zucman data, the tax rates of the top 0.1 and 0.01 percent of taxpayers have dropped substantially since the 1950s.”
akmalhot | a day ago
During the 1950s, the top 1 percent of taxpayers paid an average effective income tax rate of approximately 16.9%. In 1962, the top marginal tax was 91%, yet the average effective rate for the top 1% was roughly 16.1% in federal and payroll taxes
"The tax rates " doesn't specify marginal or effective.....
LieutenantStar2 | a day ago
That’s completely false.
akmalhot | a day ago
Oh really, please share the info
" During the 1950s, the top 1 percent of taxpayers paid an average effective income tax rate of approximately 16.9%. In 1962, the top marginal tax was 91%, yet the average effective rate for the top 1% was roughly 16.1% in federal and payroll taxes"
LieutenantStar2 | a day ago
You said “TODAY” then quote the 50s vs 1962. What a fucking joke. Incomes are not comparable, because the ultra wealthy have figured out how to underreport incomes. The reality is, if Regan/ Bush tax cuts hadn’t been repealed, we wouldn’t have a deficit in 2025 of $1.8T. https://www.americanprogress.org/article/tax-cuts-are-primarily-responsible-for-the-increasing-debt-ratio/
akmalhot | a day ago
Um..what ? Did you read anything written, at all?.
Edit : I gVe two data points when the marginal rates were around that 90% mark.. (versus today lol, which are higher than during that era)....sorry reading is based for you
People are clamoring for 90% tax rates as if 90% marginal rates came into play at all
EFFEVTIVE tax rates are what mattered.. first they just kept raising the marginal rate to get the effective rate to increase (still lower than the effective rates today).. they realize that wasn't working, you can set the rate at 100% but if there are huge loopholes it doesnt matter....so Instead they closed the giant loop holes, and made the marginal rate more reasonable..the net result was a HIGHER effective rate DESPITE the marginal rate being lower
Anyone who quotes the 90% rate as if we should go back to it with today's tax laws, has no clue what they are talking about . They make it clear that their depth of knowledge boils down to, 90> 40
LieutenantStar2 | a day ago
You don’t understand the basics of tax law or economics - why do you think it’s possible to have a $1T pay package? None of that “income” is taxed, and the corporation didn’t pay taxes either. Effective tax rates are much lower today than the 1950s-1960s. Go learn some basics, you’re embarrassing yourself.
akmalhot | 22 hours ago
Effective tax rates are NOT lower today than they are back then ,stop lying. The IRS publishes this data every single year, go look at it
Effevtive tac rates are up,busy because you want to find specific cases of some billionaires using extensive tax avoidance strategies today does not mean they weren't doing the same before.. in fact the loopholes in the 90% era were so gaping wide, they were,
That's why efective rates went UP despite marginal rates coming down, they closed those loop holes
Stop lying and making up BS
And RSUs are taxed as ordinary income when they vest, stop telling other people they don't know what they are talking about when it is YOU
snark42 | a day ago
What are you talking about? Most RSUs and ISOs are taxed as ordinary income or via AMT.
EnCroissantEndgame | a day ago
If you tax income it's never going to fix the problem. People will just structure their businesses so that they continually reinvest in the business, purchase other investments through their business if they cant find a use for the cash, and defer income indefinitely. If a business generates more income than is needed by the owner, the excess can increase the rate of compounding and allow consolidation and asset accumulation. Furthermore, if equity returns exceeds the cost to borrow, there is no incentive to ever take a salary because you can just borrow against assets (which you know are going to grow faster than the interest cost) and settle your debts after you die from your estate without paying tax. Oh added bonus, your children then inherit a minimum $28 million without paying any tax whatsoever with the cost basis stepped up so all those deferred taxes from capital gains just disappear into the aether.
Taxing income is the wrong angle entirely. We need to tax net worth. Not so much that it eats all investment returns, but also not so little that we can't fund strong social programs, education, etc. It's extremely easy to structure things in a way such that you can avoid taking income from assets, but its very hard to structure things in a way that you dont own your own wealth without losing control and ownership over it.
APRengar | 16 hours ago
Oh no! Not continually investing in companies! It's not like that's the specific intent that we want or something...
Reinvestment is the goal, the money stays active in the economy instead of sitting in a bank account doing nothing.
EyesOfAzula | a day ago
Back then, corruption wasn’t as legal / rampant.
I could easily imagine a current US government misappropriating the extra funds or prioritizing something else.
Ok-Process2951 | a day ago
They would donate to reduce their tax rate and/or reinvest in their companies instead of buying a third yacht.
akmalhot | a day ago
The effective tax rate in the 90% marginal rate days was lower than it is today .
People really need to stop referencing that like it's any kind of reality for today's world
BusyFriend | a day ago
Top marginal rate starts at $626k. Rich but not absurdly rich. Doesn’t really seem fair to change that to 90% taxed.
VGSchadenfreude | a day ago
Except you’re only getting taxed at that rate on whatever amount is over that limit. If you only make $1 over that limit, that rate only applies to that $1. That’s how marginal tax rates work. Everything below the limit still gets taxed at the lower rate.
ZerkerDE | a day ago
So you add a bracket above from 6 Mio/year or 600 Mio Net Worth you pay 90%
DatingAdviceGiver101 | a day ago
A salary of $626k already puts you well into 1% category. It is absurdly wealthy.
In my opinion, it is fair that these people face notably higher tax rates on the 626,001st dollar and beyond.
da_85 | a day ago
Just curious. What about 40% above 1 million, 60% above 15 million, and 75% above 30 million?
Or what if we just got rid of the loopholes? Or taxed cap gains at these rates?
PlzbuffRakiThenNerf | a day ago
Careful, this is how the red scare started.
Intelligent-Rock-399 | a day ago
Remember it’s a marginal rate. So your income up to, say, 500k or wherever the bracket would start would be taxed at much lower rates, and the 70% or whatever would only apply to income above that threshold that most people would consider absolutely rich.
Ready_to_anything | a day ago
We shouldn’t be taxing regular income, we should have a wealth tax. Regular people who have real estate as a large part of their expenses / wealth already pay wealth tax via real estate taxes (it’s factored into your rent if you aren’t a property owner). People with hundreds of millions of dollars should pay wealth tax too
mrpickleby | a day ago
Tax capital gains the same as labor.
BigMax | a day ago
> Try calling the 20 people at the top who could afford to chip in a donation for like every single person in the country and it'd be pocket change to them. Why are they asking us?
Yeah. Someone had a great tweet about that. They said "what are billionaires doing? If I had that much money, I'd be like Batman, or a hero of some kind. Childhood hunger? Done. Homeless veterans? Not on my watch!"
Yet those of us laying our bills out on the table trying to balance them all are expected to be the ones to fund charities, while the human embodiments of greed like Musk are out there screaming and suing to get more and more and more for themselves, literally cheering on human misery while they sit on their hoards of wealth.
totpot | a day ago
Musk is worth $750 billion and exclusively gives to a charity that does nothing else but fund a private school for his own children. If you've ever given anyone in need a dollar, you're already far more charitable.
CalBearFan | a day ago
If that is really the case it's not deductible as a charitable expense since it's a directed benefit back to himself. And you know his taxes are under a microscope at the IRS.
BigMax | a day ago
That's not true. You can donate to a school, you don't get it negated just because your kid goes there too. He couldn't give just his kid a scholarship or something of course, but if it's to the school as a whole, it still counts as a charitable donation.
CalBearFan | a day ago
The language was private school for his own children so a bit vague and i think it'ssafe to say the person i was replyjng to was claiming Elon was breaking some rules.. Now if the funds are shared across all students equally, then yes, deductible. But only if he's also paying the same tuition as other parents.
Gamer_Grease | a day ago
That’s not true if it’s a school other kids go to. You can deduct gifts to the school you send your kids to.
Ok-Primary2176 | a day ago
This is largely why I've stopped giving to charity. Poverty is really not our problem to solve, and if anything it's just another capitalist scam where some CEO gets a large slice of the pie meanwhile the actual charity gets crumbles
MagicWishMonkey | a day ago
That’s a pretty unhinged take. The government should definitely provide more support, but charities are incredibly important and millions of people rely on them.
totpot | a day ago
The red cross raised half a billion dollars to rebuild Haiti and years later, they wound up building a grand total of six homes. They spent more on private jet fuel during that period.
AnxiousCount2367 | a day ago
the economy morphed 50k slowly into 25k and convinced you to believe it's still 50
The walnut is a pecan, the pecan is a cashew, the cashew is an almond, the almond is a peanut, the peanut is a sunflower seed, the sunflower seed is a sesame seed, the sesame seed is a poppy seed, etc.
Ok-Primary2176 | a day ago
Instead of actual inflation we should just collect people's money each month. So at the end of each month you get a payment slip. See how people would react then
Safe-Mind-1975 | a day ago
Did you vote in your last municipal election?
Gamer_Grease | a day ago
We can all do something, even if they can do more.
MassiveBoner911_3 | a day ago
My utility bill just went up another $20 a month. I am not donating a damn penny.
dtmfadvice | a day ago
My hours are getting cut to half time starting 1/1, I'm not feeling generous either.
jerzeett | a day ago
I don’t think it’s about that but more showing the effects on how bad cost of living has gotten.
I no longer have the job but last year I set up like 30 or 50/ month in charity donations. I forget.
But I wouldn’t be able to afford that this year unfortunately
Gamer_Grease | a day ago
Exactly. I had to change jobs due to a relocation this year, and had the hardest time I have ever had by far getting a new one. My giving isn’t happening this year, unfortunately. The economy just can’t support it.
desertrain11 | 15 hours ago
This is what I say every time the self checkout asks me for money at the grocery stores.
Sigynde | 14 hours ago
Never do that. They’re just using your money to increase their tax breaks. If you’re going to donate, just send it directly to the charity yourself. These stores are just guilting people into doing it so they don’t seem like bad people in public.
Sigynde | 14 hours ago
They are calling the 20 people at the top, and the 20 people at the top are making donations.
Except they’re using their money to fund evil think tanks that are determined to amass them more money and power by taking it from us.
wes7946 | 14 hours ago
Don't expect of others what you cannot expect of yourself.
dravik | a day ago
>could afford to chip in a donation for like every single person in the country and it'd be pocket change to them
There are over 350 million people in the US. A $100 donation for each person would be over $35 billion dollars. Elon Musk had a total of around $428 billion in assets. Even for him your suggestion would be a hell of a lot more than pocket change. Elon couldn't even get that much money in cash if he wanted to give it out because he would have to find people with $35 billion in cash to buy his assets.
The 20th richest in the US is worth $52 billion. You're demanding he give away over half of his worth. So definitely not pocket change. He again, just like Musk, would struggle to find buyers for his assets with that $35 billion in cash to make the purchase.Source for wealth estimates.
Atalung | a day ago
I'd prefer he give away somewhere north of 51 billion. Stop simping for people who would let you die for a nickel
aft_punk | a day ago
> The 20th richest in the US is worth $52 billion. You're demanding he give away over half of his worth.
He would still be a billionaire many times over. There is no material difference in lifestyle between having a billion dollars and 25 billion dollars. He would still be able to own multiple houses and yachts… and the other half could be spent to significantly improve the lives of many others (like feeding starving children).
keegums | a day ago
So you're saying probably just 3 - maybe the bottom three - of the top 20 richest people could probably equal the amount of all Americans (including children) donated $100? Amazing, yes, especially when added with Elon's hypothetical 42.8 billion 1% donation.
dThink_Ahea | a day ago
Imagine trying to evoke empathy for billionaire scumbag Elon Musk by saying "he's so poor if he gave everyone in the country $100 he'd ONLY have $393 Billion left!"
Thanks for demonstrating the entire point, numbskull.
broonribon | a day ago
> The 20th richest in the US is worth $52 billion. You're demanding he give away over half of his worth.
You don't have to convince me--I'm already in favor of this.
merry_go_byebye | a day ago
And how often can he actually keep doing this?
Solid-Mud-8430 | a day ago
Where'd I say for each one of them? What I said was if they collectively paid the same rate back to society that they did in the earlier 20th century, maybe we wouldn't need so many damn charities. Try $35b and divide it by 20....
Also of you want to get granular over details, the articles is talking working adults. There are NOT 350m working adults in the US. I don't think babies have $100 lol
dravik | a day ago
You're the one who claimed "for like every single person in the country". Instead of moving the goal posts after making claims, you should do some basic math before posting.
CumChunks8647 | a day ago
Anything over $1 billion should be taxed at 100%.
floridorito | a day ago
Beginning next year (in 2026), an individual taxpayer will be able to deduct up to $1000 in charitable contributions on their federal income taxes without having to itemize. Most people - by a significant margin - do not itemize, as the threshold for doing so has risen. So for this year, donations can't be deducted from tax returns unless a taxpayer itemizes. People who are aware of this are likely waiting for 2026 to roll around.
a_gallon_of_pcp | a day ago
$1000 on top of the standard deduction?
floridorito | a day ago
Yes. Taxpayers will not be required to itemize in order to deduct the cash contributions made to charitable organizations, up to $1000. Donations have to be in monetary form - meaning donated goods do not count. As usual, the organization has to have the appropriate IRS designation of 501c3, and obviously taxpayers need to keep their receipts.
Fed_Deez_Nutz | a day ago
Wonder if you can deduct contributions made to your kids school fundraisers, like pay the buyout for their sports booster club which is usually a 501c3
Gamer_Grease | a day ago
You can, but you need to be able to document you did it. Like you don’t want to just put cash in a jar or something.
Oceanbreeze871 | a day ago
So give $1000 cash away to get $1000 write off. Is that a win?
gimpwiz | a day ago
Give $1000, get $100-370ish back on your federal taxes, depending on your income. It's a pretty broad range.
That is a win if you want to donate the money and get some of it back off your taxes. It's obviously not a win if you don't want to donate money.
WantCookiesNow | a day ago
It’s a tax deduction, meaning it just lowers your taxable income. That doesn’t mean you get $1000 back in taxes.
Guilty-Shoulder-9214 | a day ago
Right, but it does give you more control where that money goes if there’s a cause you believe strongly in or if you don’t have faith in this federal government spending the money well.
Especially when we’re looking for excuses to invade Venezuela.
EnCroissantEndgame | a day ago
It means that a wealthy person can donate more money for less. At the top bracket a person can donate $1000 for $630, whereas someone who only makes $8k a year will have to pay $1000 to donate $1000.
Given that most of these donations are either going to religious businesses, or straight up fabrications, I think this system is completely and totally fucked. I do not want to be subsidizing rich people giving religious businesses more money to do evil things and make the world a worse place.
ParkerTheCarParker | a day ago
Your math is way off
snark42 | a day ago
Math looks right to me based on federal marginal rates. What do you think is incorrect?
EnCroissantEndgame | a day ago
Yeah you need to go back to remedial math class then, the tax rates and tax brackets are published by the IRS.
floridorito | a day ago
It's a deduction not a credit, so it's not dollar-for-dollar.
It's a win in that charitable deductions were essentially eliminated during Trump's first term (when the standard deduction was increased and charitable contributions became deductible only if a taxpayer itemized). When people no longer had that extra little incentive to donate, it had a negative impact on charitable orgs.
jerzeett | a day ago
I’m not rich enough to donate $1000 right now but if I donate say $15 a month or whatever it does help to write it off yes.
It’s meant to boost for people who already feel charitable and need the deduction to help buffer the costs a little bit.
EnCroissantEndgame | a day ago
It's subsidizing rich people to donate to religious businesses, especially those that proselytize or push a certain conservative agenda. Notice that: a person who makes like $9k a year will pay $1000 to donate $1000 to NPR, whereas someone making $900k per year gets to donate $1000 to Galactic Church of Jesus Christ of Yesteryear Saints for only $630. Why are we subsidizing rich people's donations to organizations with little oversight, many of which are religious businesses that end up using that money down the chain pushing a particular political or religious ideology? They can afford to donate without a subsidy, Im sorry but this system is completely ridiculous.
whateverthefuck666 | a day ago
You know how much money NPR gets in donations? Why act like its just religious causes. For fuck sake.
snark42 | a day ago
NPR, ACLU, FIRE, Sierra Club, Environmental Defense Fund, Nature Conservancy, local Botanic Garden, local Tool Library, local Food Pantry. These are all non-religious organizations I donate to regularly and give more due to tax deductions.
What religious charity are you so offended by? My guess is they get a small sliver of the tax deductible donations.
Gamer_Grease | a day ago
No, you will always lose money this way, but it makes it cheaper to give to charity.
Sherifftruman | a day ago
It is for charities that depend on donations
Tackysock46 | a day ago
It’s a tax deduction not a tax credit. So if you’re in the 22% tax bracket you save $220 on your taxes. It just reduces your taxable income by $1000
cumbarf9000 | a day ago
it's a wash
Beet_Farmer1 | a day ago
It is not even close to a wash
csguydn | a day ago
It’s in no way a wash. You’re giving $1000. You’re getting a tax deduction of $1000. It’s not a 1:1 credit.
cumbarf9000 | a day ago
oh yeah that sucks wtf lmao
a_gallon_of_pcp | a day ago
Would you rather: donate $1000 to charity and not be able to reduce your taxable income by $1000? Or donate to charity AND be able to reduce your taxable income by $1000?
cumbarf9000 | a day ago
i would rather have $1000
a_gallon_of_pcp | a day ago
Then don’t donate to charity?
This policy is an additional perk of doing an intrinsically good thing. Seems very strange to me to say that it “sucks”
Oceanbreeze871 | a day ago
Depending on your situation $1000 cash in your pocket now, Is far more valuable.
a_gallon_of_pcp | a day ago
And this is for FY 2025 or FY 2026? I.e., can I claim this when I do my taxes in 2026 or can I claim it when I do my taxes in 2027?
floridorito | a day ago
The new provision goes into effect in 2026 for 2026. It does not apply to donations made in 2025 or to 2025 tax return filings.
a_gallon_of_pcp | a day ago
Thanks!
zxc123zxc123 | 19 hours ago
Nice. I'll donate to some local organization that helps the local community. I recommend others do the same.
jerzeett | a day ago
Honestly this is great because it’s such an easy way to boost charitable donations. I’ve literally been wondering why it wasn’t like this before .
floridorito | a day ago
Things used to be different. The tax code got a big shake up during Trump's first disasterm. The standard deduction was increased, but a lot of deductions were removed.
MoonBatsRule | a day ago
a lot of deductions were removed mostly for people in blue states.
Specifically, the SALT deduction was capped at $10k, so people in high-income, high-tax states got limited.
It was raised to $40k in 2025 though, but not available if you make more than $500k it is still going to be $10k.
ballmermurland | a day ago
The TCJA of 2017 fucked charities. It raised the standard deduction up to a point that made any tax benefits to donations for 90% of Americans pointless.
This is another Republican special. They fuck something up and then go back and fix it years later and voters think "oh wow thank you!".
Dr_PainTrain | a day ago
So you’d rather have to donate $5,650 in charity to get to the same amount as the standard deduction? (2017 vs 2018, the year TCJA went into effect)
Gamer_Grease | a day ago
I’ve been in fundraising since then, and at the time, was heavily involved in the tax side. It did not noticeably impact charities.
exveelor | a day ago
That's pretty sick.
Feels like when they doubled the standard deduction it made a lot of 'deductions' not matter for lay people. Mortgages, donations, etc.
Good change. ... Where did that change come from? Like who decides these rules?
floridorito | a day ago
Congress decides. It was part of the "one big beautiful bill" that passed this year. It may be the only halfway decent thing that came out of it.
neonklingon | a day ago
I don’t know what any of that means
shakestheclown | a day ago
Bad tax thing happen from good tax thing. Bad thing fixed soon so charity back on the menu for many.
Woodit | a day ago
That’s good to know, I think I’ll up my monthly donations starting January then
Philodendron69 | a day ago
Yup
smackrock | a day ago
Exactly. I stopped giving donations when the government took that tax benefit away from me.
NaturalRobotics | a day ago
That’s great news!
frawgster | a day ago
Completely anecdotal, so take this with a grain of salt.
The organization I used to work for (almost 14,000 employees, the vast majority earning blue and white collar wages for my area) has had a yearly donation drive for decades. Every year there’s an organized effort to solicit donations from employees. Several weeks of activity…emails, events, incentives, etc. I recently learned the results of the most recent drive that ended in September/October, and they were contextually bad enough that, for me, they spoke to the more widespread economic difficulties that blue and white collar workers are experiencing.
This past drive was the least successful I can recall in over a decade. Even when wages were much lower (before lots of employees got significant pay raises during and after Covid), employees were donating more than this past year. What’s also pretty telling is that this year it appears that, unlike prior years, the organization is not shouting the results of the drive from the rooftops. Compared to prior years, they’re keeping things low key.
InfamousHeli | a day ago
I know exactly what you're talking about. After I saw this org at a local meeting in support of our main utility provider rasing rates by 25% I was done donating to them. Turns out this utility company donated large sums to them so they helped them to raise rates on everyone in the area. I will never donate to them again, it was already scummy going after nonprofit employees for money
Your__Pal | a day ago
GivingTuesday donations were up 13% this year after Many people made donations to their local food shelter before that because of food stamp cuts.
If dollars are up, and participants are down, these organizations can still function.
The bigger problem is the death of USAID.
electricgrapes | a day ago
I help run a rural food pantry which usually gets a few hundred in donations from the public per month. We got $27,000 in donations in November. It was unbelievable.
TheFinestPotatoes | a day ago
Which food pantry? Drop a link and I’ll donate in January
electricgrapes | a day ago
we're so small we don't even take online donations yet 😂 thank you for asking though. I joined the board as the only member under 65 and we're making progress!
definitely donate to second harvest in our place. they are the only reason we are able to feed 350 families per week in rural Appalachia. we're an affiliate.
PineappleHaunting403 | a day ago
I can help you set this up if you DM me!
electricgrapes | a day ago
thank you, I'm actually a non profit exec as my day job and I'm leading them thru onboarding onto givebutter in a few weeks.
PineappleHaunting403 | a day ago
Givebutter looks like a great choice.
jerzeett | a day ago
Honestly just donate to your local one! You can do some research if you’d like
pyromantics | a day ago
Same. I’m involved in a pet shelter, and we had a record Giving Tuesday this year.
jerzeett | a day ago
The problem is Trump also cancelled a shit ton of aid for the United States (I’m not talking about usaid but aid that goes to food banks across the country) back in April. There may have been more after.
yourlittlebirdie | a day ago
The tax laws changed a few years ago so unless you’re making huge contributions, you basically can’t deduct your charitable contributions anymore. That means there’s no reason to donate at the last minute to get it in under the year end deadline.
makemeking706 | a day ago
I assumed this was going to be the top comment. And I vaguely recall similar articles the last few years as well.
RandomlyWeRollAlong | a day ago
This is changing in 2026. People who take the standard deduction will be able to deduct an extra $1,000 for charitable donations. I'm not sure how long that's going to last, though.
great_apple | a day ago
I mean the tax law changed so the standard deduction is much higher, meaning more people take that instead of itemizing- but charitable contributions were always a very small part of itemized deductions compared to SALT/mortgage interest. You don't need to make huge contributions, you need to own a home and pay a lot of mortgage interest.
The reason people usually donated "at the last minute" was more just holiday giving. Taxwise it doesn't matter if you donate in March or on Dec 31 and as an accountant, "give a bunch to charity" has never been a tax avoidance strategy unless we're talking about appreciated assets. But the holiday season has always been associated with charitable giving, a lot of charities run aggressive pledge drives this time of year, charitable foundations will do all their big giving... heck just as someone who volunteers with local charities, all year long I can schedule myself a volunteer shift whenever I please until November-December when they're completely overwhelmed with people wanting to volunteer all of a sudden. Just like gyms are always packed in January.
Gamer_Grease | a day ago
For a very large swath of Americans it still makes sense to plan your giving with your taxes. Just higher-earning folks. Doctors, lawyers, business executives, engineers.
petshopB1986 | a day ago
I can’t afford christmas let alone donations. I didn’t buy anything and told people not to buy for me, I can only image how hard it os right now for folks worse off than me and not be able to have help.
Gamer_Grease | a day ago
Yup we shrunk Christmas down to baked goods and such to save money this year. We’re not going to do our usual giving.
BestBettor | a day ago
Most US adults aren’t making year end charitable contributions?
I wonder why, maybe it’s because the bottom 50% of people have 2.5% of the wealth and the top 1% owns 30% of the wealth. I wonder how much Elon or Bezos are donating at the end of the year, my guess is zero like usual
Bent-Ear | a day ago
I literally can't afford to donate to charity, or I will need charity.
Like. That's how it is for people
BetAway9029 | a day ago
Because why should we, when we are ruled by kleptocrats and billionaires.
wanderingpanda402 | a day ago
The raised the standard deduction and depressed wages, there’s no end of year incentive anymore to donate because it doesn’t help with taxes like it used to. And no one can afford to donate after the compounding inflation we’ve had for the last 5 years
Countless-Alts15 | a day ago
This reminds me of those would you like to donate to some "rando corporation donation fund" at checkout bs.
I can barely afford my own bills. Who gonna donate to me
Nuvuser2025 | a day ago
When grocery stores and restaurants and everyone in between began demanding tips at the check out line, my contributions dropped off.
I can’t be sure of who actually receives charity anymore.
Solid-Mud-8430 | a day ago
You don't like when billion dollar companies try to guilt trip you out of a few more bucks?
If they're so into the cause, they should donate themselves. Otherwise, I'm assuming most of that money doesn't actually go to starving kids.
Obvious_Chapter2082 | a day ago
A lot of them also do donate themselves. But it just so happens that rounding up at the register is an easy and convenient way for people to donate money that they otherwise might not
HDauthentic | a day ago
*convenient way for the business to write off the donation(s) on their taxes
Obvious_Chapter2082 | a day ago
That’s not how it works. The individual claims the donation, not the business
mdzkelduncol | a day ago
Never give money at checkout, helps their tax break.
Notsosobercpa | a day ago
Its still your tax deduction not the companies. Its the free PR they are looking for, not the slopiest attempt at tax evasion imaginable.
TheFinestPotatoes | a day ago
Don’t donate until January!
Wait till next year when the tax code becomes more favorable towards charitable donations
The cap on SALT is rising from 10K to 40K so a lot more people will be able to itemize their deductions making those charitable donations tax deductible for those who itemize.
Also, we are adding a new $1,000 limit for people who donate without itemizing.
For
Fantastic-Emu-6105 | a day ago
Unfortunately the instability of the economy and manic behavior of the administration has caused us to pause charitable giving in exchange for hedging our finances. I feel horrible about it but this is the byproduct of a Trump economy.
NutzNBoltz369 | a day ago
"Charity should begin at himself".
AKA, if you can't take care of your own family or yourself, how can you take care of someone else?
Those who would give are broke and those that don't give have all the money.
HoneyBarbequeLays | a day ago
It's because I am the one in need of charitable donations. But seriously, I thought we've done away with the covid era charitable contribution? You need to itemized in order to get that and common folks don't even do itemized deductions
studentofgonzo | a day ago
Lol donations. Bezos and Musk could, in one wave of their hands, take care of donations for everyone for the next 20 years. And not feel a blip on their radars either.
Hanifsefu | a day ago
Let's not undercut their wealth: they could end world hunger with a wave of their hand and still none of their descendants would ever have to get a job.
Ketaskooter | a day ago
That's not really true, hunger across the globe is not an overall food problem its almost always a logistics problem with many causes. For example its very unlikely the hunger in stateless nations can be solved because they are so unstable.
Jdelu | a day ago
Useless article, absolutely no context as to what is typical. I’m guessing this is true every year, but again I don’t know because the article provides no context.
zukenstein | a day ago
I usually donate something every year, but not this year. I haven't had a job since Dec '24 (software engineer), and I'm burning through savings and some retirement just trying to support my family. If I can get a job soon, I can go back to my charitable ways. Until then, I have to look out for myself.
Gingeneration | a day ago
Companies don’t give bonuses until end of Q1 after financial warnings anymore, and for those who are capable of year-end donations to include for tax benefits, their accountant probably already has it baked in. Why would people make year end donations vs early year?
Gamer_Grease | a day ago
Because they usually do. A lot of people don’t settle on how much and where they want to give until the end of the year.
Gingeneration | a day ago
Ah, that makes more sense
RigorousMortality | a day ago
Could this be a symptom of a capitalist economy that has run amuck and no longer pays wages proportional to the production of its workers? No, it must be those pesky non-boomer generations for not giving more at checkout lines. How dare we not make donations when prompted by the multi-billion dollar corporations.
SvenTropics | a day ago
Something to think about, when they changed the tax code for the original Trump tax cuts, they dramatically increased the standard deduction and also took away a bunch of potential deductions that people had. The idea was it would mostly balance out. In some ways it's easier, you just check the standard deduction box. However now you have a lot of people that just do the standard deduction, and you get no benefit for a charitable contribution. You have to contribute enough to go over what your standard deduction would be with your other deductions and most people don't meet that threshold.
the-hostile-tomato | a day ago
Why doesn't Elon Musk make a $100 donation to charity on my behalf? While he's at it, why doesn't he make a $100 donation to charity for every single person in the United States of America? That would only cost him ~35 billion dollars which still keeps him as one of the richest men in human history. Also, he gets a tax refund for charitable donations anyway. He could snap his fingers and do that today and he's still richer than Andrew Carnegie.
Let's stop asking why regular people aren't doing enough. Why aren't the billionaire class donation millions of dollars to charity every single month?
Just_Candle_315 | a day ago
Oh no! Wont someone think of all the poor 501c3s!?
Seriously this is what passes for fucking journalism? Motherfuckers can barefly afford groceries and AP-NORC like: hey y'all people arent making year end donations!
BeyondDoggyHorror | a day ago
Better than what passes for this comment. It’s possibly an economic indicator that should be reported on.
Im_tracer_bullet | a day ago
It's just news.
It's not their job to editorialize it.
Bent-Ear | a day ago
Upvoted
ID_MG | a day ago
I don’t think asking anyone making less than 170k a year, for even $5 extra towards a donation makes any sense at all. Theres enough wealthy people out there that can donate. I’m not playing your games anymore.
Objective_Problem_90 | a day ago
Im living paycheck to paycheck just trying to afford my Healthcare so I dont die. Was sure doing alot better under the previous administration. Alot of others around me are still wondering when the country will be great again. Not seeing it.
Both-Mango1 | a day ago
Tbh how much of the "percentage " goes to charity?
If you donate to one that gets heavily involved in politics, it's not really a charity much anymore. Im holding back because everything could go to absolute shit in a year and we will all need charity. Keeping my $$ for my charity, me.
Medium_Sized_Bopper | a day ago
Company took away a day of PTO, reduced 403(b) matching, and raised my contribution for healthcare, so I gotta claw it back somehow. Charity was first to go. Sorry, local cat shelter.
Sufficient-Bid1279 | a day ago
I can barely afford food and I am on the brink of needing the food bank. I can safely assume a lot of people are in the exact same position. It doesn’t feel great when you can barely afford food.
kennyloggins19 | a day ago
It's because most adults are one missed paycheck away from needing charitable contributions themselves. Didn't the Fed say that most adults can't cover a $400 expense back in 2020? I'm sure that figure is only smaller now.
Packagedpackage | 9 hours ago
Donations are to be personal expense. 501c can fk right off for people who donate. You put money in the cup and keep walking. Whether it’s $1 or $5k. No reason to be greedy and expect some deduction in return for the donation.
Like Mitch hedberg and the donut. “I gave you money and you give me donut, no reason to bring paper and ink into it”
Destinyciello | a day ago
We care so much about our fellow man! We should tax everyone else and force them to pay for my empathy and altruism.
Have you given them a penny? Hell nah I'm too broke for that, that iphone ain't gon pay for itself!
Johnnadawearsglasses | a day ago
As someone who is a treasurer for a non profit in my spare time, this is definitely true. The drop off after Covid has been astounding. People spent time with themselves during covid and decided they didn't want to engage with the world anymore in any sort of positive way. It's very sad.
EnCroissantEndgame | a day ago
it's been 5 straight years of real inflation (not CPI, not CPI-U, not PPI, but the actual cost of living that average people are actually experiencing in the real world) exceeding cost of living raises for the average person. I work in a state with higher than average inflation. Simple example, all of our healthcare costs increased by about 20% this year while simultaneously decreasing the coinsurance from 80% to 70% that our health insurer pays out. The premium increased massively, the deductibles increased significantly (especially now that they have a separate deductible for each individual in the family) maximum out of pocket increased massively, and the amount we pay out of pocket after hitting the deductible has increased massively (literally being expected to pay 50% than we were for our portion). Normally when prices increase, you at least get something in exchange for it. We have been given worse everything, while being told that we need to pay more because we were underpaying before.
Meanwhile, the average employee saw a generous yearly increase of 2.5% in their salary. In a state where we are seeing actual cost of living increases between 8 and 12%. It's a cruel joke.
Rich people have become so greedy with the ruthless need to push all costs onto people that work for a living, and by that token have forced us to become greedy so that we can stretch out what was enough to live off and still be able to save for the inevitable job loss that results in being out of work for 6 to 18 months with a non-existent social safety net. the hoops one must jump through to apply for and receive unemployment assistance are so massive and it pays so little that a lot of people do not even waste their time trying to get it, because they know that it's much easier just skipping dinner than expending the extra effort to get $200 a week unemployment assistance. It's pissing in the wind.
Science_Matters_100 | a day ago
This is it. More hardships
EnCroissantEndgame | a day ago
Yes. With the health insurance example I gave, nearly 100% of employees I work with have taken a paycut, even if they got the maximum raise of 4%. A lot of people complain about this, but we are told there is nothing that can be done, all states have increased their rates due to health care costs increasing and the risk pool getting riskier due to reasons. In my case it's been bad but if I had children it would be so much worse. A lot of my coworkers are paying hundreds of dollars a month for what amounts to catastrophic insurance, which used to be free for employees and a couple hundred extra for a family per month, to now paying almost $1000 a month in premiums for insurance that doesn't even start paying until several thousands of dollars in deductibles are paid. The only value in this insurance is negotiated rates that are 20 to 30% cheaper than whatever the sticker price is in most cases, and then occasionally bringing down some banal essential medication that would normally cost $450 a month down to $12 or bringing down some lab tests that get charged at $1200 down to $31. Stupid shit like that. Beyond that, the remaining value is having a maximum out of pocket that caps a family to paying only $18k a year out of pocket on top of the premium, so at least the worst financial damage in a single year will be paying out $30k in combined premiums and out of pocket medical expense. It's just bankruptcy protection. I personally have a medication that costs $12 a month, but I have to see a doctor every 3 months to get the prescription refilled. We literally talk about nothing, he asks how my past few months have been, have I travelled, blah blah blah, and then finally "how are you doing with the medication" so I can answer "same as before" and then he writes me the prescription. I get a bill in the mail for $230 every time we have to do this.
The medical system and insurance system in this country is beyond fucked. I shouldn't need to pay a guy $230 for us to chit chat about the weather and travel so that he can copy paste the same prescription I've had for 9 years. If I were a low income person, this alone would ruin my life. I can "afford" (not really, more like I can tolerate) to pay this idiot $1k a year for 20 minutes worth of zoom meetings to get a prescription refill. a lot of people cant though.
we are so cooked. no joke, even being a multi millionaire in this country is anxiety inducing if the number of millions is less than 5. At 5 you're not out of the woods, this is just breathing room. You can't relax until you reach 10+ million and even then you have to mitigate all the risks that can still make you bankrupt via lawsuits, medical debts or a medical emergency. it's constant anxiety that you can be broke at any moment for an arbitrary stupid reason that isn't your fault. it feels like cultivating this environment is deliberate.
Packagedpackage | a day ago
Wtf is wrong with people trying to get tax breaks for donations??? Gotta be the greediest concept of them all. You donate and that’s it. There is no reason to file anything and expect something back. That is what donating is. “Hey I got this I don’t need and looks like you might… but I gotta make sure I get my tax break tho so give me a receipt”. Get these people out of the same society as me. Disgusting.
Science_Matters_100 | a day ago
So you want MORE of your money to go to the Feds to enhance their grift? Would that make the world better?
It doesn’t cost the orga anything to give a receipt. Not using your deduction is foolish
Packagedpackage | a day ago
Expecting something in return on taxes for giving someone something they needed is greedy. I’d rather appear a fool than be greedy.
Science_Matters_100 | 21 hours ago
You don’t seem to understand that claiming deserved deductions does not take anything from charities. If it’s greed not to give the government what isn’t owed, are you greedy for not giving the government everything that you own?
Packagedpackage | 10 hours ago
It’s no different than putting money into a homeless person cup. Are people writing that off too? Hope not. Put the money in the cup and keep walking. Drop the clothes off keep walking. Write the check and keep walking. It’s that easy.
Science_Matters_100 | 10 hours ago
You are so wrong. If I’m donating 4+ figures to a 501c, it is not at all like dropping change in a cup of some rando. IDK what you’re smoking but it’s not helping you. You ignored my boundary and jeep doubling down so you are blocked. Bye
Packagedpackage | 21 hours ago
Claiming the deduction is the greed. Expecting something for donating something to someone is the greed. It’s giving. You gave them what they asked for, the deal is done. Mitch Hedberg has a piece that directly relates to this..
Mitch Hedberg on Doughnuts: “I bought a doughnut and they gave me a receipt for the doughnut. I don't need a receipt for a doughnut. I'll just give you the money, you give me the doughnut. End of transaction. We don't need to bring ink and paper into this.”
EnCroissantEndgame | a day ago
Because not all donations are equal. There are organizations that are 503c that do objectively evil shit with the donated money, particularly religious businesses that masquerade as charitable organizations that help needy people. These people can spend money with nearly no oversight and no visibility or accountability what it is being used for. It could be used for paying for the car wash on the luxury vehicle the church leader drives (or pay the car payment, because its a church expense of course and he needs to get to work, and someone of his stature cant spread the good word driving a Camry so you know it's got to be a fully upgraded Cadillac)
I'm probably just being cycnical, but after watching videos of people calling evangelical churches and asking for food assistance for their hungry baby and getting turned down or hung up on over and over and over again, I think these kind of deductions are a nod and a wink toward people that want to use a religious charity to do a small amount of grift, as a treat. It makes the plebs feel like they're getting in on the action lying about a max limit donation that lets them pocket another $220 in their tax refund.
Packagedpackage | a day ago
A donation isn’t to be about the money. At all. Someone donates money yes but it’s more of an object that the org or people needed. Whether it’s dropping clothes off at goodwill at 2am or donating money. It’s just donating. Doesn’t need to be anything more to it than that. If a need for funds is approved then they can do what’s needed with the donations. If you agree with who you’re donating too then it shouldn’t matter what they do with it. That’s why it’s important that morals are put first before dollars. It’s similar to people who complain about meta yet still have accounts and hold shares with them. Gotta put the money where the mouth is. If you agree with the org then you donate.. at the cost of it may affect one’s image if the people do shady things.
EnCroissantEndgame | a day ago
Yeah we shouldn't be allowing religious institutions 501c3s unless they can prove that they're not a money laundering business (or other criminal operation) that has slapped a religion on the front to legitimize the criminal nature of what theyre doing. "if you agree with the org then you donate" is stupidity if you allow any criminal organization to form an opaque structure that exists primarily to enrich the organizers and executives of the criminal enterprise.
Packagedpackage | a day ago
Church should be paying taxes and should be treated like any other book club. All entities that pay taxes should be audited every year. Computers have more than enough power to do that.
OkCelebration6408 | 21 hours ago
Money to non profit orgs almost always make things worse, they have all the incentive to keep making problems worse so they could exist forever.
Obvious_Chapter2082 | a day ago
I know that people are feeling squeezed and everything, but it’s embarrassing that almost a third of our country doesn’t donate anything at all to charity. Figured it was gonna be much lower than that
SinickalOne | a day ago
A little more than a quarter of US citizens don’t have $1000 in savings in the event of an emergency expenditure, honestly this doesn’t surprise me one bit.
broonribon | a day ago
Maybe that third is the people receiving the charity funded by the other two thirds.
penguin808080 | a day ago
We pay like 25% of our earnings into a system that's supposed to provide for the less fortunate. That's not enough?
TeamHope4 | a day ago
They shouldn’t need to donate! Richest country in the world should take care of its people without needing charity. WTF, why can’t we fucking feed people instead of begging for donations?
EnCroissantEndgame | a day ago
In civilized society there is no charity. It shouldn't even exist and the fact that people expect others to give to charity shows how sick this society is. If a charity is needed, that means we need our lawmakers to properly pass bills and allocate funding to that particular need, and then raise the taxes to fund it.
kennykerberos | a day ago
Give 10% to the Lord first. Then the rest is yours to spend as needed. That's the way to do it. You take it off the top, not wait until you see what's leftover. Prioritize! Giving at my church is surpassing last year's 2024 numbers and more than the projected 2025 estimates. People are doing well!