Charitable Government Agenda

Last week the IRS disclosed that in evaluating an application for tax-exempt status, ‘low level’ staffers had used search words such as “tea-party” and “patriot” to single out organizations for further review.  Conservatives are outraged at the McCarthy-style tactics, seemingly immune to the irony that McCarthy was a Republican conservative.  No mention in the reporting (or ranting) is what happened in 2006 when (under a Republican President) the IRS went after All Saints Episcopal Church and tried to rescind its tax exempt status over a sermon.  (Church and State?) Heads are starting to roll, but it's a bit of a head scratcher.
 
When it comes to charities, the IRS has specific rules.  In exchange for not having to pay income tax organizations must have a purpose and mission that is for the public good.  They must also disclose donor lists, contributors, etc.  The government then gets groups that are doing things that are beneficial to many (public benefit).  Feeding the homeless, for example, is something that without private not-for-profit organizations would ultimately become a government program…or so goes the theory.  These organizations are exempt under 501(c)3 of the IRS code.
Political groups and lobbying fall under a different section of the non-profit code 501(c)4…and that’s what these groups fell within.  From all of the reporting thus far, none of these groups were DENIED tax-exempt status, they were just required to go through additional screening.  There are rules about disclosure and purpose for those groups – and because they are overtly political in nature they are more carefully evaluated since they are exempt from having to pay into the tax system.  The fact that “code words” were used is stupid, partisan and not at all surprising…but totally understandable since the IRS job is to determine if a group is political, charitable or lobbying.  People will be fired, and that's appropriate.

 
The kerfuffle over the IRS’s latest embarrassment is further evidence that the entire tax code is rigged.   By having incentives for individuals to give to charities (less tax burden) the government is incentivizing certain behavior patterns.  This exists all over the code:  think mortgages, child care deductions, eco-friendly cars --- there are thousands of ways the tax code is used to drive individual behavior in a way that the government encourages...or alternatively discourages like smoking and drinking and buying yachts. 
The best solution, of course, is to eliminate the tax code altogether.  It would require government to make stark choices about the handful of things that it could fund.  (The Constitution is a good guide for what should be funded.)  It would require Americans to be really clear about those things they are willing to fund for themselves and their neighbors, and what things they wanted to fund personally.
It’ll never happen.  Republicans and Democrats agree that the existing tax code works.  They each want to adjust the code for their own agenda and drive behavior to their thinking.  The underlying philosophy of a government collecting funds and reallocating those dollars to others is where both parties agree.  It’s quite a charitable government if you’re part of the agenda.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Hoping for Grace

I wrote this blog regularly for many years, 330 unique posts. Every Thursday I’d post my thinking for the week. I always strove to offer a perspective that wasn’t in the main discourse on a particular issue. It wasn’t left or right or even center – just looking at something from a different angle. There were some really great dialogues that happened with people who appreciated nuance and having a substantive conversation. I never sought for agreement from readers, just a healthy and respectful debate. The election of Donald J. Trump changed the engagement from polite discourse to flame throwing character assination if somebody disagreed. That wasn’t interesting or productive to me, so the blog no longer served its intended purpose. I return to the format because today because it seems to be a good way to explore an issue that I’ve been long committed to, but handled in a thoughtless way. Recently I made a thoughtless comment on a Facebook post that was undeniably racist, and demean
Read more

Giving the gift

Image
The holidays are right around the corner. It’s a time of reflection, excitement and no matter one’s religious predilections a there’s a tradition of gift giving. Talking about the holidays before Halloween is usually met with revulsion and resistance. This time it’s different. While we can’t grant everybody’s #1 wish – that the 2016 U.S. Presidential election cycle be over – maybe we can do something close.   Let’s give Donald J. Trump what he’s been talking about. I’m wary of adding to the proliferation of commentary on the Grand Old Party’s nominee. But then maybe there’s something to the Trump complaints. Instead of dismissing everything that comes out of his mouth as made up, perhaps we should be doing is more of what he worries about, not less. The more recent complaints from the real-estate tycoon have to do with media bias. All “the media” does is lie, distort and never gives him fair coverage. This same media generated over a billion dollars of free brand and nam
Read more

Give me a break!

The idiom “give me a break” generally is used when you don’t believe something that has happened or been said. We’ve all muttered the expression a lot lately, especially around the 2016 Presidential race. I am going to use it here more literally. I started this blog in late July 2010. This is the 329 th iteration. At an average of 750 words that’s nearly 250,000 words. To compare that’s about three average mystery novels (at 80,000 words each), much less than the Bible (800,000 words) and nowhere near the IRS Code (4 million words). Originally Craig’s Corner was a way to keep me focused during a long stint where I was without work or income. With gainful employment it has become a welcome respite from the day-to-day tasks. I tend to focus on issues that are interesting to me but not necessarily a critical part of what I do day in and day out. My perspective isn’t unique, but I do look at the word with a different lens. I’ve tried hard not to be part of the echo chamber and been
Read more