[toyg]

You assume the funds are disbursed by individuals rather than vehicles, you don’t specify which legislation you’re considering, etc etc etc. I don’t think you have enough facts here to start crunching numbers. In the UK for example there is Gift Aid for individuals: https://financial-coaching.co.uk/blog/post/self-assessment-a...

A number of schemes exist around various countries to promote incentives to donate, and they typically end up with people paying less tax overall than they would otherwise. (Note: I don’t think it’s a bad thing, no critique meant).

[frobozz]

Yes, you pay less tax overall, but the reason for that is that the money is treated as having been given to the charity pre-tax. It does not make your net income go up.

In the illustration in your link, Sue gives 1k to charity, and as a result, and pays 350 less tax. This means that, as a result of this donation, her net income has fallen by 650.

I did not provide the specific names of all the rules, but I thought that would be obvious from the numbers, context, and some of the terms

I had not considered the difference between payroll giving (my first example,give 1k before tax, charity gets 1k, your taxable income is 1k less), and claiming back (you give 1k after tax, charity gets 1.25k, you reclaim some of the tax you paid), but payroll giving is more efficient for the donor, as they pay zero tax on the donation, rather than basic rate, as in the reclaim method.

There is no UK legislation, as far as I know, that reduces your tax bill by more than your donation.

[frobozz]

Briefly, my point is that tax efficient charitable donation schemes can only be said to benefit the donor if you start with the assumption that part of their lifestyle includes the charities getting a certain amount. E.g. if I want the charity to get 1.25k, I only have to spend 1k for that to happen.

The schemes amplify the effects of existing altruism, rather than offering incentives to persuade non-donors to donate.