Monthly Archives: August 2017

Tax Reform and Charities

Posted on by
Reply

Charities stand to lose billions in donations if Republicans advance their tax overhaul, prompting the nonprofits to carefully attempt to persuade lawmakers to reshape their plan.

As a result of a proposal to double the standard deduction and prevent people from deducting state and local taxes from federal taxable income, fewer taxpayers—5% instead of 30%—would have a financial incentive to itemize their deductions, including their charitable gifts, according to several estimates.

Especially estimates by charity associations, who also have a vested interest in claiming that, with no deduction incentive, Americans won’t donate to charity as much as we do presently.  Americans, though, at least the vast majority who do donate to charity, do so because it’s a right thing to do, not because we get a tax deduction for the donation.  That last simply makes no financial sense. Say a donor is in the 39.6% bracket.  If he makes a $1,000 donation, he’ll get a deduction of $396.  His donation still will cost him $604: he’s lost money on the donation/deduction exchange.  The cost to the donor increases as we go down the brackets.  American taxpayers aren’t stupid.

When we put a charitable contribution and its deductiblilty in the context of the rest of the deductions, we see even further the foolishness of the concern.

For example, a married couple with costs of $7,000 in mortgage interest and $6,000 in local taxes would exceed today’s $12,700 standard deduction. That couple would have an incentive to itemize and deduct every dollar of charitable contributions.

The totality of deductions must exceed a threshold before the deductions can be taken, and then only the amount exceeding the threshold can be deducted—all of them together.  Thus, a charitable deduction in combination with a mortgage deduction gets the deduction spread across both costs together—driving the cost of the charitable donation even closer to the amount actually donated.

American taxpayers aren’t stupid.

David Wills, President Emeritus of the National Christian Foundation has a different take.

We don’t think that anybody should have their charitable giving taxed. Anybody[.]

Leaving aside the illegitimacy of using our tax code for social engineering, the tax on a charitable donation would become pretty unimportant to the donor under any serious tax code reform, including the present one that’s on offer.

American taxpayers aren’t cheap, either.

In short, I’m not convinced charities will suffer overmuch with a combination of lower tax rates and elimination of the charitable tax deduction (among other deductions also being eliminated)—especially given the doubled standard deduction that’s in the current proposal.  With more money in our pockets instead of Uncle Sugar’s, Americans will be freer to donate.

We Americans are neither stupid nor cheap.

Gun Control

Posted on by
1

A bill is making progress in Congress that would allow concealed carry license holders, whose license was issued in one State (their State of residence) to concealed carry their weapons in all States: the Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017.  The bill also would require such a carrier to abide by the laws of the State they’re visiting, including all of that State’s gun-free zone designations.  In this way, the reciprocity law is similar to drivers license reciprocity, under which it’s legal to drive in any State so long as the driver both is licensed in his home State and obeys the driving laws of the State he’s visiting.

Naturally, the bill has lots of resistance in the coastal States and cities—jurisdictions run by Progressive-Democrats.  The California Police Chiefs Association President Edward Medrano, for instance, has these objections:

The bill would erode local control of issuing concealed carry permits, as the arbitrariness of the issuing authority rules would reduce the requirements for concealed carry to the lowest common denominator.  Further, the lack of a national database for concealed carry permits makes it functionally impossible for a law enforcement officer in the field to determine the legal compliance of an individual carrying a concealed firearm.

Both of these objections are disingenuous.  The requirement for concealed carry is quite simple, and it’s laid out clearly in the 2nd Amendment [emphasis added]:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The “lowest common denominator” objection also illustrates the utter illogic of Medrano’s objection.  It is the multiply varied local jurisdiction rules that are arbitrary.  The lowest common denominator standard, accepting that characterization arguendo, would be easily understood and widely so, since it would not at all be arbitrarily varying.  Too, a required reciprocity like that in the Act, would put the onus for keeping up with local jurisdiction variability and arbitrariness where it belongs: on the individual and not on the government’s men.

Beyond that, no national database of concealed carry permits is needed.  Most States issue concealed carry licenses and require the license holder to have that license in his possession at all times—just like his drivers license.  A few States don’t require licenses to carry concealed, but those States are easily identified—by the drivers license the holder still must have with him at all times.

New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio and Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel (OK, an interior mayor, but a Progressive-Democratic Party one nonetheless) argue that the reciprocity act would

essentially force the localities to give full faith and credit to permits that are issued on less rigorous grounds [and] remove local governments’ ability to maintain sensible gun standards.

Because full faith and credit is a terrible thing.  We’ve also seen what Progressive-Democrat “sensible gun standards” amount to: a citizen having to show to a government official’s satisfaction that a need to carry exists.  The Supreme Court has already ruled on the illegality of that arrogant nonsense.

Progressive-Democrats like New York’s District Attorney Cy Vance is even arguing that reciprocity would give Daesh terrorists (and other terrorists, presumably) a leg up.  This is just a cynically offered red herring of a scare tactic.  Guys like Vance carefully ignore the fact that the leg up is that of an armed citizen or group of us confronted with an already armed terrorist.

The Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act needs to go through without any delay.

Mueller’s Grand Jury

Posted on by
Reply

Judge Andrew Napolitano thinks the reason Special Counsel Robert Mueller has convened a grand jury as part of his “investigation” into alleged Russia collusion by members of President Donald Trump’s campaign staff is so Mueller can use the jury’s subpoena power to compel testimony and the delivery of documents.  Napolitano also said, in FoxNews insider‘s paraphrase, that the jury’s convening is

a sign that Mueller has found something from some source….

As an aside, I put investigation in quotes because it’s difficult to believe Mueller is conducting a legitimate investigation: he has too many leaks coming out of that thing, including the leak of the fact of this grand jury’s existence.  Grand juries are secret operations, among other reasons, so as to not tip off the target of the fact of the investigation or of its progress.  This leak is an enormous one, but it’s only one of the myriad that Mueller has allowed to occur and which stream Mueller has chosen not to stop.

Back to the topic.  Sure, the existence of the grand jury means Mueller “found something.”  It might be serious, or it might be the ham sandwich that any prosecutor can get a grand jury to indict.

Given the leaking coming from Mueller’s “investigation”—my spaghetti colander leaks less, albeit with the same deliberateness—it may well be that he has, indeed, assembled his ham sandwich.

Human Gene-Splicing

Posted on by
Reply

Some scientists have successfully spliced some genes into a human embryo to correct a mutation that causes heart disease, proving the possibilities open to us and our health (and potentially eliminating health coverage provision as a Progressive-Democrat tool of welfare entrapment [/snark]).

Experts noted that the newly successful process could cure more than 10,000 genetic diseases, including some types of cancer and early-onset Alzheimer’s, sickle cell anemia, and cystic fibrosis.

“We have to be very delicate with how we use this because it’s very, very powerful,” Alice Benjamin, a clinical nurse specialist said on Fox & Friends.

There is a legitimately strong concern with the ethics of this, concerning both the matter of messing with human genetics and upsetting the “natural order to things.”  Benjamin went on to express the latter concern, but as a matter of caution not of objection.

It’s certainly true that caution is needed and a clearly laid out set of guidelines for getting down into human genetics to correct this or that item needs to be developed, along with a clearly laid out set of sanctions for violating those guidelines.

However, we’ve been messing with nature and upsetting the natural order of things ever since we went pastoral and agrarian and started selectively breeding our food animals and plants, deliberating selecting animal offspring and plant seeds for the favorable characteristics of their parents in order to enhance those characteristics in succeeding generations.

In addition to that caution regarding manipulating human genes, though, we also need to consider the ethics of withholding the ability to correct serious genetic defects and meekly allowing the baby to grow, sort of, with a serious disease, or like Charlie Gard, simply leaving the baby to die.

Genetic manipulation moves much more rapidly than selective breeding, and that’s the basis for caution.  Genetic manipulation as messing with nature or upsetting the natural order is what we’ve been doing for the last 8,000-10,000 years, though.

Works for Me

Posted on by
Reply

The US has imposed additional sanctions on Iran, vindicated by Iran’s launch of a new ballistic missile, a test of a rocket capable of delivering satellites into orbit.

Iran now is objecting, saying the additional sanctions violate the nuclear “deal” signed by ex-President Barack Obama (D).  Iran claims

new US sanctions against the Muslim country constitute a “breach” of the 2015 nuclear deal between Iran and Western powers.

That’s fine.  It’s good that Iran seems to agree with this administration that the thing is a terrible accord and ought to be gotten rid of.  We should tear it up and impose complete sanctions on Iran.

Unfortunately, the flies in that ointment include the EU, Russia, and the People’s Republic of China.  None of those would be willing to reimpose sanctions and isolation from the commerce of the world.

That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t take action; we should.  We’d just be acting unilaterally.