sdb@whuxlm.UUCP (Brener Stanley) (03/01/85)
According to my understanding, a person should give 10 percent of their income to charity. Hence if you earn 20K, then you should part with 2K. I have read and heard that taxes are deductible from income for this purpose. Hence, if you earn 20K, pay 5K in taxes, you need only give 1.5K because this is 10 percnet of your net. MY question: Shouldn't taxes be applied as a credit against the required charitable donations? A lot of taxes are used to help the poor. Assume 25% of taxes go to help the poor. Then on an income of 20K, on which you pay 5K in taxes, you should only owe $750 in charity. (25% of 5K is 1250. 1250+750=2000. 2000 is 10% of 20,000) What is wrong with applying taxes as a credit against charitable contributions?
rjb@akgua.UUCP (R.J. Brown [Bob]) (03/01/85)
I think the critical difference is that taxes are always
assumed to be extracted by force (of law at least) while
charity is assumed to be a freewill offering of your wealth.
Doesn't the tithe belong to God under Jewish Law ?
What I mean is Jews don't give their tithe money to the Red Cross
do you ? Would it be channeled through your congregation ?
Bob Brown {...ihnp4!akgua!rjb}robison@princeton.UUCP (Tobias D. Robison) (03/01/85)
In order to decide how to tax charity, one must inevitably think
in terms of preferential subsidies, not moral logic. Every tax
advantage or disadvantage is a statement by our government that we wish
to encourage, or discourage, a certain type of spending. As logical
as any subsidy may be, there are always many reasonable alternatives.
And now, the truly useful part of this letter: The IRS thinks that
most people who claim to give 10% of their income to charity are
lying. Making this claim is a very good way to get audited.
-- toby {princeton!robison}, not robinson.
The quote:
In article <695@whuxlm.UUCP> sdb@whuxlm.UUCP (Brener Stanley) writes:
>According to my understanding, a person should give 10 percent of their
>income to charity.
>MY question: Shouldn't taxes be applied as
>a credit against the required charitable donations? A lot of taxes
>are used to help the poor.ask@cbdkc1.UUCP (A.S. Kamlet) (03/05/85)
> I think the critical difference is that taxes are always > assumed to be extracted by force (of law at least) while > charity is assumed to be a freewill offering of your wealth. > > Doesn't the tithe belong to God under Jewish Law ? > > What I mean is Jews don't give their tithe money to the Red Cross > do you ? Would it be channeled through your congregation ? > > > Bob Brown {...ihnp4!akgua!rjb} I can't speak for all Jews, but I certainly give to the Red Cross, Heart Fund, March of Dimes, MS, MD, United Way, etc., etc. I also contribute to several Jewish charities, and help to pay for the costs of operating my synagogue. In biblical times, the Levis were assigned the role of operating the tabernacle and, later, the temple. They were not allocated any land, and so received what we might today call taxes for sacrifices to G-d, to pay for the costs of operation and for their own subsistance. There is no temple today, and there are no sacrifices to G-d. And so there is no longer any such practice as "collecting taxes to give to G-d." Now, separate from "taxes" are the commandments ("mitz'-vot") of "tze-dak'-ah," which means righteous deeds including giving charity. Tzedakah has several levels, for example it is better for the receiver and giver not to know each other than to know each other. And it is better to give a loan (or to "fool" the reciever into believing that a gift is really a loan, thereby upgrading the self-respect of the receiver.) And it is even better to give someone a job than a gift or a loan. The mitzvot of tzedakah are incumbent on all Jews. In fact, even a Jew who receives tzedakah is bound by the mitzvot of tzedakah. No matter how poor people may be, they know they, too, have helped other poor. What I am legally required to pay someone as part of a business transaction, or to pay the government as legally required taxes, is not related to what G-d requires of me to give to other people through the mitzvot of tzedakah. If someone requires legal payment from me, it is simply not tzedakah, even if some is used for good and charitable purposes. So, no matter how much I pay in taxes, I must ignore this when performing tzedakah. As I said above, tzedakah is not only money, but also deeds. What I don't know is if there is any minimum or maximum amount required. I know that insultingly small gifts are prohibited since they are insulting. And excessively large gifts or deeds that would wear out the giver, or make him unable to give at least as much this year as last year, are also wrong. -- Art Kamlet AT&T Bell Laboratories Columbus {ihnp4 | cbosgd}!cbrma!ask
teitz@aecom.UUCP (Eliyahu Teitz) (03/05/85)
> > I think the critical difference is that taxes are always > assumed to be extracted by force (of law at least) while > charity is assumed to be a freewill offering of your wealth. > > Doesn't the tithe belong to God under Jewish Law ? > > What I mean is Jews don't give their tithe money to the Red Cross > do you ? Would it be channeled through your congregation ? > > As far as I remember, the tithe belongs to me to distribute as I see fit. And the Red Cross is a charitable organization as much as any Jewish organization is. The Salvation Army on the other hand is different, being a religious group ( non Jewish ). Eliyahu Teitz.
martillo@mit-athena.UUCP (Joaquim Martillo) (03/08/85)
I would think twice about giving money to the International Red Cross which counts as a member organization the Red Crescent which often serves as a tool of Islamic Barbarism (treats Muslim and non-Muslim victims differently) and which tends to propagandize slavishly the opinions of the PLO which is a modern expression of traditional Islamic Jew-Baiting. The International Red Cross accords no official status to the Red Magen David. The Behavior of the IRC was mixed during the Holocaust. From Franco, Spain, the Jews and the Holocaust p.82. The Spanish government was sincerely interested in achieving this aim, and acted accordingly. However, the Swiss government, as well as the International Red Cross whose seat was in Geneva, virtually collaborated with the German mass murderers against this small group of Jews in Vittel. They took a rigid legal stand in order to destroy us. While the Germans recognized our passports, for their own reasons, as explained above, the Swiss government and the Red Cross, who were supposed to be guided by humanitarian motives, cast doubt on our foreign citizenship, knowing well that their attitude meant a death sentence for our group! They must therefore, bear a considerable part of reponsibility for the fate of these 173 Jews taken by the Germans from Vittel to Auschwitz, where they were all killed except for three (3) who escaped. I have also heard reports of bad behavior of the IRC during the Israeli War of Independence.
ask@cbdkc1.UUCP (A.S. Kamlet) (03/10/85)
> I would think twice about giving money to the International Red Cross > which counts as a member organization the Red Crescent which often > serves as a tool of Islamic Barbarism (treats Muslim and non-Muslim > victims differently) and which tends to propagandize slavishly the > opinions of the PLO which is a modern expression of traditional Islamic > Jew-Baiting. The International Red Cross accords no official status to > the Red Magen David. : : Does anyone happen to know how much the national American Red Cross and the International Red Cross gets for every dollar donated to the local community Red Cross organization? For example, I write a check to the "Franklin County Chapter, American Red Cross." What cut goes to the Americal Red Cross Headquarters, and how much to the International Red Cross? What is the connection between the American and International R.C.? Is the International Red Cross funded by the U.N. or governments? -- Art Kamlet AT&T Bell Laboratories Columbus {ihnp4 | cbosgd}!cbrma!ask
teitz@aecom.UUCP (Eliyahu Teitz) (03/11/85)
> > In biblical times, the Levis were assigned the role of operating > the tabernacle and, later, the temple. They were not allocated > any land, and so received what we might today call taxes for > sacrifices to G-d, to pay for the costs of operation and > for their own subsistance. There is no temple today, and there > are no sacrifices to G-d. And so there is no longer any such practice > as "collecting taxes to give to G-d." One point. The Cohanim, priests, were in charge of the Tabernacle and Temple, not the levi'im. The Levi'im also did not have an allocation of land, and they too worked in the Temple, but the primary control was in the hands of the priests. > As I said above, tzedakah is not only money, but also deeds. What I > don't know is if there is any minimum or maximum amount required. > I know that insultingly small gifts are prohibited since they are > insulting. And excessively large gifts or deeds that would wear > out the giver, or make him unable to give at least as much > this year as last year, are also wrong. The Talmud, and halacha discusses different amounts, the standard being 10% and a maximum of 20%. The G'mara in many places discusses how much a person should spend on any given mitzva, not only charity, and it says a person should spend no more than 1/5 ( 20% ) of his money on any one mitzva. Eliyahu Teitzu >