- Posted March 25, 2009 by
This iReport is part of an assignment:
Impressions of Obama press conference
I thought there where some key moments in the President's press conference last night that might have been over looked, one such area as mention below by the President, which for all intent and purpose is essentially tightening a loop-hole under charitable giving that over the years in this country has been more sham then meaningful purpose.
And if this where not the case then we wouldn't have the poverty levels where there at. Realizing more and more charitable giving is to other county's, it is however apparent that giving in this country has turned into a business, and as recent years have shown , the private sector is no better then the government, and in fact most times are even worst. So while millions are floating around every April 15, (the great tax dodge) the return or benefit is minimal to the purpose.
[Excerpt from President Obama's, press conference, March 24 from the White House]
"And what we've said is: Let's go back to the rate that existed under Ronald Reagan. People are still going to be able to make charitable contributions. It just means, if you give $100 and you're in this tax bracket, at a certain point, instead of being able to write off 36 percent or 39 percent, you're writing off 28 percent.
Now, if it's really a charitable contribution, I'm assuming that that shouldn't be the determining factor as to whether you're giving that $100 to the homeless shelter down the street.
And so this provision would affect about 1 percent of the American people. They would still get deductions. It's just that they wouldn't be able to write off 39 percent.
In that sense, what it would do is it would equalize. When I give $100, I'd get the same amount of deduction as when some, a bus driver who's making $50,000 a year, or $40,000 a year, gives that same $100. Right now, he gets 28 percent, he gets to write off 28 percent. I get to write off 39 percent. I don't think that's fair.
So I think this was a good idea. I think it is a realistic way for us to raise some revenue from people who've benefited enormously over the last several years.
It's not going to cripple them. They'll still be well-to-do. And, you know, ultimately, if we're going to tackle the serious problems that we've got, then, in some cases, those who are more fortunate are going to have to pay a little bit more.