Final-Fan said:
Kasz216 said:
Final-Fan said:
Kasz216 said:
Final-Fan said:
I understand that it's not small potatoes, but that doesn't mean you aren't blowing this completely out of proportion and inventing/promoting conspiracy theories.
Take your time with any reply as I'm off to work. |
I think it's easier if you go through the math of what Obama wants and go through how this would work.
Normally if I were a rich guy and i were to donate 1,000 dollars to charity. I would no longer have to pay income tax on that 1,000 dollars.
Now Obama wants to change the law so that if you donate 1,000 dollars to charity you have to pay 100 dollars per 1,000 donated.
So for every 1,000 donated to charity, the government makes 100 dollars. For every 1,000 dollars not donated to charity that would have been... the government makes 350.
Now... someone may want to double check my math since i'm tired... however.
He expects this to generate 18 billion per year.
If Charity giving were to drop by 4 billion. That would be a gain of 1.4 Billion.
Four Billion/Onethousands X 350 = 1.4 Billion
So... Ignoring the fact that people will give much less in 09 then 06.
That gives us around 200 Billion total as far as charitable giving.
Assuming that it was all donated by that tax bracket... that would be 20 Billion.
So either he expects more of a loss to charitable giving... the top tax bracket gives an inordinante amount of money away to charity.
18 Billion - 1.4 Billion = 16.6 Billion.
So he's over by 3.4 billion.
So that would mean the rich donate 83% of all money given to charity?
With the 17% left being split among all the lower tax brackets AND corporations? (Or just the tax brackets if we assume they were talking about just personal giving.)
That can't be right. The number shrinks even below 17 when you realize that the number will actually be lower in projections.
Edit: Actually I screwed up and put 250 instead of 280. Making the situation look even worse for Obama's projections. Since instead of 100 per donated 1000 it would be $70.
Making from that 200 million a gain of 14 billion. Combining for a grand total of 15.5 Billion. If all money was given by the top bracket.
I mean... I don't see where Obama is getting his numbers here if he expects a mere 2% drop. Unless you can see a flaw in my math.
Either he's really massaging the numbers, or he expects it to really drop chartiable giving. As he says he expects just that provision will create 179.8 billion over 10 years.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/feb/27/charity-tax-challenged-by-political-friends/ |
First problem: in 2011 the top bracket will be 39.6% by the time this would go into place, so:
-- it's (39.6%-28%=11.6%) $116 of $1000. (Starting in 2011)
-- 4 x .396 = 1.584
-- 18 - 1.584 = 16.416 (although obviously not all charitable giving comes out of the top bracket)
Second problem: If 2.1% of X is $4b, then X is ~ $190b, not 200.
-- 190 * .116 = 22.04 (same disclaimer)
So if all the charitable givers were in the top bracket it looks to me like revenue would be (22.04+1.584) $23.624 billion starting in 2011 (31% more than $18b). I presume this would not be in effect for this year, so there would only be one year of the 15.5 billion.
|
So it still seems like either
A) The rich give a disproportionate amount of money to charity... even lots more then busisnesses?
or
B) His numbers just aren't adding up. |
Well, I'm sure they do give disproportionately, because, well, they have a lot of money to throw around, and someone like Bill Gates can probably skew the numbers singlehandedly.
But using the top-bracket assumption we're like 30% over the bar. Do you really know how a more realistic spread would fit the numbers? Please do share.
|
Not really... i'd think by taking the percentage we know each tax bracket donates and divide it by what percentage of the national income they make per year.
But i have no data for people who make over 5 million plus said data is based on IRS numbers vs survey data.
Suvery data actually being more reliable since a lot of people don't put down their charity giving as deductables and some people don't even have taxes that they can deduct said givings out of.
Still everyones relative charity burden could be somewhat figured out this way though it would once again be givign a benifit to the doubt towards the Obama position. Little too tired to do the math right now.
Basically would involve this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_States
and this
http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/columnist/block/2007-11-26-holiday-charity_N.htm
