In an earlier
post, I suggested that possibly the Obama administration’s proposal to reduce the charitable deduction for the wealthy was a ploy to fund his social engineering programs and, at worst, buy votes.
I worried that I might be “attributing malice to that which could be explained by stupidity.”
I needn’t have worried. Here’s
Joel Berg, executive director of the New York City Coalition Against Hunger, in today’s Washington Post:
When the wealthiest Americans donate to charities, they are most likely to give to universities, hospitals and cultural institutions from which they and their families may benefit.
Well, it’s their money, isn’t it? Berg doesn’t appear to think so.
First, such tax deductions are a highly inefficient way to fund social programs.
Second, voluntary private charity is a less equitable way to solve community problems. While many people assume that the rich amass their wealth on their own, the truth is that their business interests are almost always aided by public efforts such as roads, bridges and ports through which they ship their goods or public schools that educate their workforces.
It doesn’t seem to occur to Mr. Berg that “the rich” also pay the majority of taxes that build these roads, bridges, ports, and public schools.
Given that even the wealthiest benefit greatly from this modern "public commons," it is wrong to give them unilateral power to decide whether their taxpayer-subsidized donations should go ....
In other words, Berg’s priorities outweigh the priorities of those who are actually supplying the funds.
It is fashionable these days to say that "the community," not government, should solve social problems.... In America, the government is the most legitimate voice of the entire community.
Wealth is, or rather should be “community property.” Is it any wonder why the wealthier among us are “going
John Galt?”
Wasn’t it Karl Marx who said “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need”? Why yes, yes
it was.
[UPDATE] The Washington Times
agrees: “Mr. Obama, his administration and allies seem to see charity and charitable giving in a different light.”
