Things such as eBay, Amazon.com and Craigs List have also taken away peoples idea of giving the stuff people don't want or need to a person in need without making some kind of profit in the process. I guess the only real benefit, besides making a buck, is that our landfills are a lot less full of junk now that one persons junk is another persons treasure they were willing to pay to get.

Here's a thought.

The government wants to give, too!  But it is so big that it can't see all the little places that need some donations.  However, we, the people that the government is to serve, can see them!  So when we give, the government wants to give too!  So it does, but instead of giving to the non-profit, it gives back to us, rightly assuming that we increased our giving to account for the governmental portion.

There is no incentive.  If you donate $1000, you might save $300 on taxes.  You are still out $700.

I am sure to some that is a thought.  But for me, if I have an extra $10, I would much prefer to give it to charity than the government.  So if I want to give $100, and I find that I have an extra $50 because the government got less, I just give the charity that as well.

Colleen and I give to Veterans causes. How much is no ones business.

I can understand what you are getting at, but I find it somewhat wrong to give to charity expecting to get some, even if just a little, back. In the end the charity is getting the full amount you are giving and that is great, but why would anyone expect to get something in return? If you meant to give only Z amount but gave X amount expecting to get Y amount back while only having Z amount to your name , then why not just give Z and forget about the deduction? I just don't get it. All I can gather is that you can brag to have given more that you actually did.

I don't know DrGuy, this to me sound more like a mail-in-rebate. You got something for $1000 but only paid $700 for it while still claiming to own a $1000 item.

But would you file the tax deduction to get some of it back? Or was it your intention to give the whole $100, and the extra $50?

Well, I wasn't asking how much ModMan. As you said, that is no ones business. I am simply curious to know why anyone would give a certain amount to a charity they believe in only to expect to get some of it back, even if it's just a little.

I can't deny that part of my personallity always expects to get something every time I do something nice for someone, even though it's my belief that I don't do things expecting something in return. I can't help feeling that way.

This is stupid Charles, really. 

I answered you back on that other blog, obviously you didn't read it.

If you give $5,000 to a church or charity you rightly get a tax donation.  This is to encourage people to give on their own.  So as a reward you can earn this deduction.  It's perfectly legal and acceptable.   You get very little back but the charity still gets $5,000 regardless.

I would much rather claim my deduction and get a little back then let the government keep it for themselves and line their pockets with it.  To me it gives me more money in my pocket so that I can again, use that to help another.  The more money we have as individuals the more we can do good with it ourselves. 

Or would you rather have the politicians spend your money for you? 

Where?  The only place you "claim" it is on taxes, and that was just to make sure the government got less.  I dont "own" anything.  once the check is written, it is no longer mine.

Believe it or not, the intention is to give as much as I can.  So once I decide how much I need, the rest goes to charity. 

I am not altruistic.  I dont give from need, just the extra.

A tax deduction isn't paid from or to anyone.  Tax deductions reduce the taxable income, if there are enough deductions the taxpayer might end up in a lower tax bracket. 

~~~~~

What is wrong with doing both?  Giving for the sake of giving, but also taking the tax deduction that is available.  One doenst' have to be the incentive for the other.

The way I see it, it is up to the person giving to know what is in their heart.  If a person doesn't feel right about taking the deduction, then they probably shouldn't, but if a person is ok with it, then there is no reason to tell them not to.

I doesn't ParaTed but it is, otherwise whats the purpose of the tax deduction? I agree people have the right to chose whether to take the deduction of not, my point is if you do, why did you donate the amount you did then?

$Available/.6 = Donated amount.  SImple math.

I donated what I did for several reasons, none of which was "for the tax deduction", but taking the deduction doesn't give me any money at all, it merely lowers my taxable income for the year.  People are talking like the government writes a check to people who claim a deduction.

I get a tax deduction on what I buy for use as a guitar teacher to, but taking that deduction doesn't diminish my love for teaching guitar.

As I said before, if a person doesn't feel right taking the deduction then I'm not going to tell them they should.  On the other hand, I don't know anyone else's heart enough to accuse them of donating simply for the deduction.

plain and simple Charles we don't.  I don't give money so I can have a deduction.  It doesn't make ANY sense.  I'm going to give $5,000 away so I can get maybe a hundred or two back?  Does that make sense?  It makes more sense just to keep it all doesn't it? 

It's like someone who told me we should always have a mortgage so we can have this as a tax deduction.  That's like spending a dollar just to make a dime.  No sense. 

I give because God moves my heart to give.  At the end of the year when it comes to filling my tax return I, by all rights, can put down any giving I do during the year.  If I don't I'll end up paying more taxes.  Now where do the taxes go?  They go to various places the government deems worthy.  So if they see by your donations you're doing this on your own they give you a lower bracket....THAT MAKES SENSE.   The lower bracket is a reward for giving.  If more people gave then less government programs would be needed. 

You're assuming we give just for lower taxes and that's just not true. 

Well i wasn't talking about getting a chekc back either. Getting atax reduction still means more money for you, doesn't it?

Why not just $Available = Donated amount?

Actually, yes and no.  I'm sure Mitt Romney, Harry Reid, The Osmonds, Steve Young, Gordon Jump or other wealthy Mormons paid enough in tithing and made enough in taxable income to make a difference, but this will be the first year we will be itemizing, and that is mostly because of my self employment projects this year.

Again though, it is not up to me, you, or anyone else to decide what is in the heart of someone else who gives and why... unless you have decided that you are the arbitor of who is truly giving and who isn't.

Since I'm a Red Cross volunteer, I don't have to pay for CPR classes or any other training the Red Cross offers, does that somehow make the donation of my time less worthy?