Fox News' Kilmeade echoes charitable donation deduction falsehood
SUMMARY: On Fox & Friends, Brian Kilmeade falsely asserted that President Obama has proposed eliminating the ability of taxpayers to take income tax deductions for their charitable contributions. In fact, Obama has not proposed eliminating the charitable donation income tax deduction for any taxpayers. Rather, a provision in Obama's budget proposal would, beginning in fiscal year 2011, reduce the tax rate at which families earning more than $250,000 per year can take itemized deductions to 28 percent.
During the March 5 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends, co-host Brian Kilmeade falsely asserted that President Obama has proposed eliminating the ability of taxpayers to take income tax deductions for their charitable contributions. Kilmeade claimed that the Obama administration has proposed "getting rid of the deduction for charitable donations." In fact, Obama has not proposed eliminating the charitable donation income tax deduction for any taxpayers. Rather, a provision in Obama's budget proposal would, beginning in fiscal year 2011, reduce the tax rate at which families earning more than $250,000 per year can take itemized deductions to 28 percent.
Kilmeade's false suggestion echoes a false claim made by Rep. Tom Price (R-GA) without challenge during the March 1 edition of CNN's State of the Union and uncritically reported in a March 2 USA Today article.
From the March 5 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends:
RUDY GIULIANI (former New York City mayor): The original stimulus package was supposed to be an infrastructure package: 5 percent --
GRETCHEN CARLSON (co-host): Shovel-ready jobs.
GIULIANI: -- 5 percent for infrastructure, 95 percent for social programs that are debatable -- might help people, might not -- but this is not the time to be doing it, when -- it's like when your business is going down, you don't spend twice as much more money, you try to save money.
CARLSON: But I find what's fascinating this morning -- you asked where's the money going to come from? Now a report out this morning that maybe they're going to rethink taxing people again in all of this. So if they were going to raise $318 billion in 10 years by raising the income tax to 40 percent, they're not going to potentially get that money now. So, how are they going to pay for those programs?
GIULIANI: Well, I think what they're -- I think what they're focusing on is just the reality. This is not a Republican or Democratic reality. This is a reality John Kennedy understood. If they raise taxes, they're going to end up with less revenues for the government, because you're going to see people taking their money out of the United States, sheltering their money, not making as much money --
KILMEADE: It goes into metals.
GIULIANI: Absolutely right. You've got to stimulate the economy for this to work.
KILMEADE: And they might actually get rid of the -- getting rid of the deduction for charitable donations. They might rethink that, because charities will be decimated.
GIULIANI: Well, yeah. I mean, the idea that tax increases stimulate an economy is just dead wrong.
You're really not very bright, are you?
What part don't you get. If you give to the charity and you can't take the full deduction, part of the deduction is eliminated.
"Obama has not proposed eliminating the charitable donation income tax deduction for any taxpayers."
Yes he has. MMFA is trying to play on the words eliminate as in total elimination which of course Kilmeade didn't say. It is absolutly true part of the deduction is being eliminated.
KILMEADE: And they might actually get rid of the -- getting rid of the deduction for charitable donations
Really? That sounds like "reducing"? You really can't be serious, so I have to assume you're insulting everybody else's intelligence here trying to pass off this pile.
You wingnuts are really disintegrating.
The Col with his normal grace and style. Obama and his plan will hurt charities. Plain and simple. But, being that you hate all things related to faith i doubt that bothers you. These charites may have a religious affiliation afterall.
I'm sure somebody, somewhere is very interested in the theories and fantastic off-topic ramblings of you and your wingnut pals. What would lead you to believe that sane people want to read them?
You might as well jump on the "getting rid of = reducing" crazy train, it's at least more coherent than your faith-hating figments and phony appeals to charity.
You are a true radical dem. You want more money for charity and attack conservatives as greedy and not helping the poor..........until your guy changes the rules in a way that hurts charities. Then, like a normal dem you sell your soul and follow your new savior. The dem playbook really is easy to follow.
I've never been registered with a political party in my life.
Just about everything else in your post is a fantasy too.
Do you ever post anything here remotely connected to reality, or is this just someplace for you to vent about your hallucinations? You seriously seem a little "not well".
I forgot...you are an independent........you always just happen to vote for the looney left.....but you are an independent. Its ok Col....I understand why you would never want to admit you are a liberal....that would be the first step tp recovery.
I'm pretty liberal in most of my views, I've just never been a Democrat, and have cast quite a few votes in my life that would probably make your tiny little brain burst into flames if I told you.I'm pretty independent, in the sense that I was born and raised in a very conservative area, but was taught to use my head at an early age, thereby avoiding becoming a right wing doofus.
I'm not an "independent",that's a party, or what Republican propagandists call themselves to fool suckers like you.
To recap your post, the first two words are a lie (you can't forget something you never knew), the next four lines are all incorrect, and the last line is an attempt at a snarky insult based on the preceding confusion.
You're really not very good at this, are you?
Most people I know do not give to charity for the tax deduction but give because they believe in the charity. This will not change for the majority of people who give for this reason. Another big reason that a lot of people give to charity is that they fell guilty over how they got their money this will not change either. Learn what your are talking about before you make a statement as if it was fact.
Exactly! Anyone who would claim they will contribute less to charity if they can't take a tax break obviously aren't giving for the right reasons to begin with.
Ok.since you "dont know anyone" who gives money for that reason...you must be right.......or you have poor friends.
So where are your facts? By your posts you obviously don't run with the over 250K rich right wingnut crowd. So how is it you are an expert at how we think?
of course it's counterproductive and ridiculous, for charities will be the ones suffering when those who contribute to them for tax benefits will now be cut off at the knees for doing so. all in the name of raising revenue for the government and returning more power to the feds to distribute our money. Bad idea. If liberals can think beyond ways to get their hands on more of our money and really see the consequences of their greedy actions, in this case charities who will now have to do with less instead of the government who can't seem to ever do so, we'd all be better off.
They'll really be hurting when those nifty government grants start rolling in. Why don't conservatives get the "spend" part of "tax and spend"?
-- of course it's counterproductive and ridiculous, for charities will be the ones suffering -- jamesb
You're not alone in your thinking...even in the democrat party:
-- Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus questioned Wednesday whether the proposal was viable --
-- "I don't want to prejudge anything, but it is certainly one that I am having difficulties with," said Sen. Robert Menendez, D-N.J. --
-- Rep. Charles Rangel, chairman of the tax-writing House Ways and Means Committee, said he, too, had reservations about the proposal. "I would never want to adversely affect anything that is charitable or good," --
How about this explanation. Most charitable giving comes from low income people. They don't even get a tax break most of the time because their contribution is, individually, too small - but as a group, large. However, even if their contribution is monetarily smaller, it represents a more moral act because it is a much greater percentage of their overall net worth than what most rich donate. Maybe it's just a charity learning curve: Charities that depend on the rich don't seem to last long, according to Madoff and Stanford. Get your welfare from you neighbors, not your boss.
If people contribute to charities for the sole reason of obtaining a tax deduction then they're doing it for the wrong reason anyhow. If someone making more than $250k stops donating to charity simply because they're tax deduction got nipped by 10% then they truly are a pathetic person.
That's not the idea. The idea is that you have to make a choice. Give it to the government or give it to a charity. Obama is taking away your choice. It is a money power grab.
Let's see...so far you have claimed that a "reduction" means "eliminated," and now you're claiming that this reduction actually removes people's ability to choose. How...um...rational.
people donate their money for all sorts of reasons, some more lofty than others. Point is charities get the benefit no matter the underlying reason for the donation. Take away the motivation and charities will suffer, period.
Exactly. Part of our charity goes to the city food bank and we don't care who gets the money or the food. I know the responsible person goes to the grocery store and gets the best deal. Our motivation is the smile on a person when receiving something not expected, every week. And come to think of it, there are times in this nations history where our own treasury dept needed some help.
I disagree. I'd be more than willing to bet that most people give to charities from their hearts and not some soleless monetary incentive. The motivation should be intrinsic; not extrinsic.
what about the campaign this very website runs at the end of every calendar year to ask for donations? Right up there front and center is the "tax deducation" motivator. so you may or may not be right, but charities rightly use the tax angle as a major marketing tool to get money, because they know that is a strong motivator for many. Take that away and you'll see.
Do you send money to this endeavour? I did. My motivation is more in line with "put your money where your mouth is '. And I can answer that in the affirmative. I personally place greater importance in the fourth estate than I do in the actual government. The watcher has to be as good or better than the watchee lest we end up with revisionist history ( lies ).
See, but this is standard right-wing spin. What you're doing is taking a certain high-earning sector of the population (people earning over $250,000 a year) and turning it into everybody. Unless you earn over $250,000 a year, you don't need to worry about it at all. Even then, I don't think a lot of philanthropically-minded people in that tax bracket are going to be particularly deterred from giving money. I've worked in plenty of nonprofits and dealt with plenty of wealthy donors. Most of them do it because they believe in the program and they have the money to support it.
See, but this is standard liberal fallacy. If you don't think charities will take a hit, even a small hit is most likely going to be hurtful considering the current economy, then you are naive. many people give to charities because they believe in them, nobody is saying otherwise, but being able to write up to 38% off deductions is a benefit of one's generosity. And now Obama comes along and says nope, our precious lawmakers need that money to spend as they see fit, so fork it over.
quote And now Obama comes along and says nope, our precious lawmakers need that money to spend as they see fit, so fork it over.
this is where you lose your credibility. I don't remember pres Obama saying that. Is there a tape ?
do you need it explained to you? Obama wants more revenue for the government, meaning more for lawmakers to spend.
you are totally wrong here. You don't start up again on Jan 20,2009. GW Bush drove this economy to lows never seen before. that does not mean tax increases like you want to characterise it. It means we all have to pay taxes, not some. Your bumper sticker like statement above simplifies it to non-existance, which is not true. And be careful characterising me as a dummy who cannot understand your explanation or logic.
I think what Wolf meant regarding your lack of credibility is that you often don't seem to understand what you're talking about.
For instance, you say that even a small drop in contributions will hurt charities in the "current economy." However, this provision isn't scheduled to take effect until 2011, when the Obama administration expects the economy to be growing again. It's fine if you think the administration's forecast is wrong, but don't mischaracterize their plan.
You also say that the money raised is for lawmakers to "spend as they see fit." Actually, the money is to be spent on reforming our healthcare system. Healthcare reform was a major part of Obama's campaign, and money is needed up front in order to save money in the long run. Again, you can disagree, but it would help if you better understood the subject before calling others naive or offering to explain things to them.
what exactly did I mischaracterize in Obama's "plan"? Because I said charitable contributions most likely will suffer, that isn't any mischaracterization, that is a pretty safe prediction to make. And you have nerve calling me naive if you blindly buy hook line and sinker that lawmakers won't spend our money as they see fit, just look at the pork in the proposed budget, that is exactly what that is. You are more than free to trust the brains in Washington to tell you they will spend every dime wisely and efficiently, I just don't share your optimism, considering their history of doing just that. Let them do with less once in awhile and then I will take notice of their diligence and fiscal stewardship.
The mischaracterization was "current economy." Perhaps charities will suffer, but not, according to the plan, in the current economy. Also, the revenue is specifically allocated for healthcare reform. It's possible that could change, but until then let's stick to what we know. And I didn't call you naive, I just said you shouldn't be saying other people are.
As for the rest of your comment, I'm somewhat -- appropriately, I think -- cynical and I don't blindly trust anyone, especially politicians. However, Obama has a chance to earn my trust. So far I'm pretty impressed with the number of big, long term, difficult problems he's addressing (healthcare, education, energy, deficit, special interests, climate). It remains to be seen whether he will be successful or even if he is serious. I think his chances improve when the issues are discussed honestly.
wow.......you may be more stupid than the Col....and that is tough
that is what happens when you have nothing to offer, you revert to calling names.
It's alright by me, Wolf. I think the only insult that would offend me coming from PointlessView would be something like "Col., you make very good points, and I wholeheartedly agree with your logic". Now that would sting.
Here's a message for you bleeding heart liberals....spend $10 for Turbo Tax and put in a fake account. Make 250K and at the end it will tell you what the national averages are for filers in your bracket. Then put in 30k, 50k, 100k, etc. What you will see is those at the bottom give a much smaller percentage of their income to charity.
As a board member with one charity and a volunteer for another I can state as fact that charitable giving - whether money or time - is significantly below prior years. Major donors have all but dried up. Altruism is an ideal and not reality.
my experience in 501c3's is that people interested in the organization will give what they can when they can. the deduction is part of the calculation. i never saw a 501c3, whether a museum, a church, a social welfare organization, or a university ask about the motivation. they simply wanted the donation, and now more than ever. strive for purity if you want, but you will never make it on a board of such an organization.
such organizations seek contributions all the time in exchange for lifetime annuities. the organizations get the use of the funds while waiting for the donor to die, and paying the donor an amount certain.
The funny thing is that if you look at history a larger percent of money was given to charity before there was a tax break for giving.
we are not talking about ten buck donations. if you really believe what you say, take away the deduction altogether. zero, zip, nada. and then let's see what happens. willing to take a bet?
If you reduce it, the part you could have deducted is ELIMINATED.
Leather, go back and remove the words "part" or "partly" from all of your posts and maybe you'll understand this a little better.
Mr Helmet came back, but his strap is still too tight.
so they don't take place unti the future. you think people do not look to the future? they know their taxes will go up in 2011, and so they cut back now. Personally, I will be in good financial shape for perhaps the next 18 months, after that who knows. As a result, andknowing that tax increases are coming, I am trying to sell my house now, before the real tsunami hits, and I can have a little cushion.