[ckosidows]

Tax-deductible charitable giving means that people get to decide where their money goes on their own. There's no democratic process in the appropriation of their money.

This means the wealthier you are, the more say you have in appropriating what could be government money. If you make millions per year, you can potentially apportion more money than some citizens make in a decade. You effectively have more power in the government than many other citizens who should have the same capacity for change.

It's a form of plutocracy.

[jonfw]

> you effectively have more power in the government than many other citizens

Why would my charitable giving give me power in the government?

> the more say you have in appropriating what could be government money.

Everything could be government money, my house could be a government house, my wife could be a government woman, etc.

Just because the government has the power to seize it doesn't mean they should or that it's theirs

[ckosidows]

> Why would my charitable giving give me power in the government?

I feel like I already outlined this, but it bears repeating. Taxation gives money to the government and the government decides how to spend it. If the government spends it poorly we can vote out those who use it improperly. You can't vote Jeff Bezos out of the country.

> Everything could be government money, my house could be a government house, my wife could be a government woman, etc.

Technically a percentage of you house is claimed by the government through property tax and your wife isn't property and I hope you know that.

[sokoloff]

I think GP was objecting to your somewhat casual "[that money] could be government money" and then drawing a link from there to "effectively have more power in the government" which isn't at all obvious to me nor the GP how charitable giving gives you that special government (monopoly on the use of force) power. It did not strike me that they lacked an understanding of the mechanics of taxation.

[ars]

> means that people get to decide where their money

Yes, that's exactly what it means, because, as you say it's "their" money. A pretty fundamental part of ownership is deciding what to do with something.

You really think government should be telling people how and where to spend their money?

[ckosidows]

> You really think government should be telling people how and where to spend their money?

Nope. And you are free to spend your money how you want. The point missed here is that when it's tax-deductible that money _would_ have been local/state/federal money.

The government already decided you need to return that money back to the community/country. If they give you the power to choose who gets it, they've given you the ability to appropriate government funds.

[ars]

> that money _would_ have been local/state/federal money.

That isn't true, only a fraction of the money would have been taxed.

And that's exactly the point: We are incentivizing people to give 5 times as much money as taxes would have been.

If that money isn't allocated perfectly, well, there's 5 times as much of it, I think it'll be OK.

> The government ....

The government will never do a perfect job, this way we let people fill in the gaps.

> they've given you the ability to appropriate government funds.

You keep talking as if they deduct the full amount donated from taxes, this is simply not true.

[ckosidows]

You've got a point. My argument was misunderstood.

[srtjstjsj]

The high marginal tax rate is 40+% not 20%.

[ars]

The marginal tax rate is the wrong figure, you want to total tax rate.