Skip to main content

Last week, Americans learned that the nation's biggest charities suffered a staggering 11% drop in donations last year.  That decline in contributions to the 400 largest charitable organizations was the worst in two decades.  More than anything else, American charities hoping to refill their coffers need a return to robust economic growth.  That, and one other thing.  As study after study shows, no policy change will undermine charitable giving more than the permanent repeal of the estate tax.

The Chronicle of Philanthropy delivered the grim news from the likes of the United Way, the American Cancer Society, the Y, the Salvation Army and dozens of others:

The 400 institutions in the survey raised $68.6-billion in 2009. The drop they suffered in contributions was nearly four times as great as the next biggest annual decrease: 2.8 percent in 2001, when charities also struggled to raise money from recession-battered donors.

For 2010, the picture is slightly brighter.  Still, by the end of this year, among those non-profits providing forecasts, "they predicted was an increase of just 1.4 percent."

Writing in the Washington Post, Ezra Klein explained one of the implications for policy makers.  "Charity is counter-cyclical," he pointed out, adding, "When the economy is booming and there's less need, there's also more capacity. When the [economy] is worse and there's more need, donations dry up and there's less capacity."  That's why, Klein suggested, "we need a robust, federal safety net that's immune -- in a way state-funded programs like Medicaid are not -- from the ravages of the business cycle."

But there's one simple step Congress can take right now that would not only provide help to American charities starting next year, but add billions in revenue to the United States Treasury as well: restore the estate tax.

In 2009, only 1 in 500 American estates paid taxes and adding over $25 billion to the U.S. government.  But barring new legislation in Congress, in 2011 the estate tax rate will jump back up to its pre-2001 level of 55%, starting at $2 million per couple. In December, the House voted 225-200 to maintain 2009's rate of 45% beginning at $3.5 million per person or $7 million per couple. But in December 2009, Arizona Republican Senator Jon Kyl led the successful GOP effort to block the bill, ensuring the temporary expiration of the estate tax on January 1st:

"It's a problem that doesn't have to exist if they'll just leave the existing law alone and let the rate go to zero, which is where everyone wants it to be."

Not quite everyone.  As the data make clear, America's churches, non-profits, foundations and charities stand to lose billions if the Republicans succeed.

In 2003, the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center documented the hemorrhaging that would ensue.  As the TPC described, "The estate tax encourages charitable giving at death by allowing a deduction for charitable bequests" and "also encourages giving during life."  Its repeal would be devastating for U.S. charities:

We find that estate tax repeal would reduce charitable bequests by between 22 and 37 percent, or between $3.6 billion and $6 billion per year. Previous studies are consistent with this finding, and also imply that repeal would reduce giving during life by a similar magnitude in dollar terms. To put this in perspective, a reduction in annual charitable donations in life and at death of $10 billion due to estate tax repeal implies that, each year, the nonprofit sector would lose resources equivalent to the total grants currently made by the largest 110 foundations in the United States.1 The qualitative conclusion that repeal would significantly reduce giving holds even if repeal raises aggregate pre-tax wealth and income by plausible amounts.

That finding was echoed the next year by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO).  Ironically, its director then was Douglas Holtz-Eakin, who later served as the chief economic advisor to Republcian presidential candidate John McCain.  (Even more ironic, McCain called for the repeal of the estate tax in 2008, despite two years earlier having proclaimed "most great civilized countries have an income tax and an inheritance tax" and "in my judgment both should be part of our system of federal taxation.")  As CBO director Holtz-Eakin wrote in "The Estate Tax and Charitable Giving":

Furthermore, the estate tax provides an incentive to make charitable contributions during life. The paper finds that increasing the amount exempted from the estate tax from $675,000 to either $2 million or $3.5 million would reduce charitable giving by less than 3 percent. However, repealing the tax would have a larger impact, decreasing donations to charity by 6 percent to 12 percent.

In 2006, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP) provided a sobering assessment of what proposed estate tax reforms would do to philanthropy among the wealthiest Americans.  Whether the estate tax was repealed outright, the size of the exempted assets raised or the tax rate itself dropped, American charities would suffer painful losses of funding:

  • CBO estimated that, had the estate tax not existed in 2000, charitable donations would have been $13 billion to $25 billion lower that year.  CBO found that repealing the estate tax would have reduced charitable bequests by 16 to 28 percent and charitable giving during life by 6 to 11 percent.
  • The amount by which CBO found that charitable donations would have fallen in 2000 exceeds the total amount of corporate charitable donations in the United States in that year  (which equaled $11 billion) and approaches the total amount that foundations contributed to charitable causes ($25 billion).
  • A study by Brookings Institution economists Jon Bakija and William Gale found effects of similar magnitude, as have analyses by various other researchers.

Last year, President Obama proposed raising $318 billion over the next decade by trimming wealthier taxpayers' deductions for charitable giving to 28% from its current 35%. Predictably, Republicans (joined by some Democrats) forecast an apocalypse for donations to charities. As John Boehner ominously (and wrongly) warned, "It will also deliver a sharp blow to charities at a time when they are hurting during the economic downturn."  But as Bloomberg and The Chronicle of Philanthropy each reported, Obama's proposal for 2011 would likely have little to no impact on charitable giving.  As Bloomberg noted:

Not necessarily, say tax and philanthropy experts. They say altruistic or religious motives outweigh tax-shelter considerations among such donors, and cite previous limitations placed on deductions for high earners that they say haven't hurt donations.

Among those previous limitations, as former OMB director Peter Orszag among others recalled, was the same upper income 28% deduction during Ronald Reagan's first term.  As Orszag told reporters in February 2009, the record shows that "what drives charitable contributions is overall economic growth."

And, of course, the altruism of givers.  While the tax-free deaths this year of George Steinbrenner, Dan Duncan and other members of the gilded class have drawn attention to the temporary lapse of the estate tax, Bill Gates, Warren Buffett and 40 other billionaires pledged to donate at least half their wealth to charity.  For his part, Warren Buffett has also long insisted that the rich and famous have another moral responsibility. During a press conference four years ago, Buffett offered a strong progressive argument in support of the estate tax:

"I would hate to see the estate tax gutted. It's in keeping with the idea of equality of opportunity in this country, not giving incredible head starts to certain people who were very selective about the womb from which they emerged.

I'm not an enthusiast for dynastic wealth when there are 6 billion people who have much poorer lives. I can't think of anything that's more counter to a democracy that dynastic wealth. The idea that you win the lottery the moment you're born: It just strikes me as outrageous."

Truer words were never spoken.  But at a time of record income inequality and the return of upper class opulence, the would-be Republican majority is instead promising to kill the so-called "death tax."  And that would not only cost the U.S. Treasury billions of dollars each year; it would gut charitable giving in the United States.

** Crossposted at Perrspectives **

Originally posted to Jon Perr on Thu Oct 28, 2010 at 11:13 AM PDT.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  I wonder what limitations they're talking about (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Larsstephens

    They say altruistic or religious motives outweigh tax-shelter considerations among such donors, and cite previous limitations placed on deductions for high earners that they say haven't hurt donations.

    Wonder what they mean?  AFAIK, there's never been the sort of deduction-limit before (under Reagan, the credit was 28% because the top rate was 28%; ie, charitable contributions were 100% deductible).  I guess there was the itemized deduction phaseout, but that was a pretty small number.

  •  Best argument - Griff the Fifth (3+ / 0-)

    Griffith Rutherford Harsh V

       Overheard at Charter [eating club]

       Griff Harsh (Meg Whitman's son) throws beer in Guy's face.
       Guy: You can't do that to people.
       Griff Harsh (points at himself): Billionaire.

    Meg Whitman's #1 son is the poster boy for clueless arrogance and entitlement.  The fact that this smarmy little prick has likely never worked an honest day's work in his life and yet stands to inherit more than the net worth of a small country is simply wrong.

    FOX News is for people who can't handle reality ...
    BTW - read The Authoritarians free here.

    by kbman on Thu Oct 28, 2010 at 01:52:06 PM PDT

  •  Repugs always say volunteers are (0+ / 0-)

    better at doing charitable work, so the gov't shouldn't be in the business of helping people out in hard times. Now, they want to have it both ways: eliminate the estate tax and charities won't have the money to support these volunteers, so the poor won't have that highly variable level of assistance, AND eliminate entitlements, so the poor can't get any help from the gov't.

    They're only out for themselves, and the rest of us can go to India if we need help living on the miserable wages they want us to have.

    Radarlady

    •  India is a false bogeyman (0+ / 0-)
      Please see my sigline as to why.

      Just ask politicians to find ways to balance foreign trade with China and other countries for American jobs to return.

      •  India isn't a bogeyman (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        iceweasel

        but, the GOP and their big business buddies would love it of American workers' wages were as cheap as those of workers in India. That was my only point, not a snipe at a very large, diverse, and remarkably successful (given how the British set it up) democracy.

        Radarlady

        •  qwerty (0+ / 0-)
          On trade, GOP is for "free trade," which doesn't work when there are such drastic differences in the levels of development across nations. Even if all countries were at the same development level, the US would still need to balance its trade in the aggregate (i.e. total imports roughly equaling total exports) for long term economic well being.

          A better policy on trade, which is more or less common sense, but the numbers also support the case for it, is "Balanced Trade," namely the US should balance its trade (as much as possible) with all countries (except for very poor/undeveloped countries where we, as fellow human beings seeking to reduce poverty around the world, want to spur development), especially that with China and others that the US has huge trade deficits with.

          In short, "Balanced Trade" instead of "free trade." That's my point.

  •  One of the local media personalities (0+ / 0-)

    a conservative named Jason Lewis, wrote this in an essay about the estate tax published in the MN state newspaper: "Clinton's consternation over letting folks keep what they've earned over a lifetime betrays the cavalier attitude Democrats take toward property."

    Dying and then keeping what you've earned over a lifetime is one helluva trick. Apparently the phrase "you can't take it with you when you go" is at odds with Jason's philosophy.

    It's also at odds with the Natural Law philosophy America was founded on. There is no natural right to inherit or bequeath. Locke said a man in a state of nature who comes upon an apple tree is morally entitled to only those apples he can use for his sustenance, not all the apples. Presumably that includes apples for the man's immediate family, if he has one. If he had moral claim to all the apples so he could leave the seeds to generations yet unborn, Locke's answer would've undoubtedly been different.  

    Jefferson had some interesting things to say about the absurd notion that "nothing should control something" too. His remarks pertained to the Constitution not binding future generations, but they're applicable to the estate tax too.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site