[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.