Seeing the Forest for the Trees
All of us are reading waves of economic information right now - the stimulus, the proposed state and federal budgets - and are trying to sort out which parts have a direct impact on our communities and organizations. Both the stimulus and federal budget are big and bold and pretty overwhelming. There is so much to understand and analyze - thank goodness for some great resources like Minnesota Budget Bites and National Council of Nonprofits. I’m trying to keep up with the general framework and get into specific details when I need to. I hope that all of us who are committed to stronger communities will spend the necessary time to understand what’s needed and work together with the big picture in sight.
Considering the importance, scale and scope of the economic proposals, I am really disappointed that that the number one, highest priority, most important issue for many in the nonprofit world is the proposal contained in the President’s budget that would limit the extent of deductions for charitable contributions for those in the highest tax bracket, reported here in the Chronicle of Philanthropy.
Typical of the outcries in response is a statement from Independent Sector:
Independent Sector believes that this change could be a disincentive to some donors who might further cap their gifts on account of the new limit.
Most of the comments made by our well-known leaders include the phrase “In these hard economic times” and forecast doom if this change comes to pass.
I’m disappointed in this knee jerk reaction that’s just a version of NIMBYism at a time when we really need to pull together and work for the greater common good, which may involve sacrifice. Beyond that disappointment, I’m skeptical that doomsday will come. First of all, the change wouldn’t be effective until 2011, so it won’t impact donors “in this tough economic environment.” And if you really believe that your donors are in it for the tax deduction I think that you need to re-write your case statement. Surveys, like one conducted in 2006 by Center on Philanthropy at Indiana University for Bank of America, report that over 50% of the high net worth people interviewed would not decrease their giving even if there was no tax deduction at all. From what I’ve read, the tax deduction is more likely to impact the timing and form of a gift rather than whether a gift is made. It’s easy to get this form confused with substance. Consider this from Charity Navigator’s blog:
The data that we have seen over the years has shown a big spike in donations through our site during the last several days of the year, especially on December 31st which of course is the last day to make a qualified tax deductible charitable contribution (see our Tax Benefits of Giving article). This data indicates to us that the tax benefits really do motivate people to donate.
This logic needs checking - do the tax benefits “motivate” people to donate, or have we in the nonprofit world trained our donors to give in December regardless of their motivation? The New York Times article Limiting Deductions on Charity Draws Ire quotes several other experts about the relationship between tax deduction and reasons for giving and their confidence that taxes are at the low on the list.
Even if this tax code change would have an impact on total giving, it’s important to focus on the forest, rather than the leaves on the trees. The proposed federal budget blueprint represents a seismic shift in priorities and structure. I agree with blogger John D. Columbo’s comment:
So let’s not turn this into a doomsday scenario, folks. The truth is, if Obama can fix our health care system, charities as a whole (and everyone else, from GM to the local barbershop) are going to be much better off in the long run.
Independent Sector’s statement (quoted above) includes only one other paragraph about the rest of the 140 page blueprint for the federal budget:
The budget outline also calls for winding down spending for the war in Iraq, boosting funding for domestic priorities, and creating a “reserve fund” of $634 billion to cover health care expansion. The President has stated that his outline will cut the deficit in half by 2013.
Well, maybe that doesn’t seem that important to them.

Thanks so much for posting this. I also saw the Independent Sector post last week and was appalled at the knee jerk reaction. My first thought was “They’re going to catch hell for this”, and it seems like the backlash has already begun.
Regardless of whether or not this proposal (if it even becomes law) reduces charitable giving, it seems that the non-profit community needs to applaud using tax revenues from wealthy individuals to reinforce the social safety net. This statement from IS seems to give the impression that non-profits exist for self-serving reasons, and not to provide basic services that the government has been unwilling to perform.
That being said, it seems that there is a lot of research supporting the idea that the charitable tax deduction is not as big a factor in high net-worth individuals’ philanthropy as we might assume. It is disappointing to see the Independent Sector resorting to special interest politics like so many for-profit agencies and organizations.
Comment by Nick Scheibel — March 2, 2009 @ 12:34 pm
Hear, hear! Thanks for helping us keep things in perspective.
Comment by Pete Manzo — March 4, 2009 @ 9:17 pm
Permit me to weigh in on the opposite side. No one with any economic training believes that the proposal to diminish the extent to which donors can deduct charitable gifts will be good for charitable gifts. The relevant question is, “How much will charitable gifts decline?” We don’t know the precise answer to this, but there will be a negative effect. If you doubt this, then why shouldn’t we change the current 35% deductible clause not just to 28%, as President Obama has proposed, but to 20%, or even to zero? The answer is, we know such changes really do make a difference. Yes, we shouldn’t panic, but yes, also, anyone who seeks to raise money should be concerned, particularly when marginal income tax rates, capital gain rates, and dividend taxation rates also would increase. This mixture of tax increases comes at a time when household wealth has declined steeply and, all things considered, certainly is not a recipe for excellent fund raising. Anyone who doesn’t take this into account in their planning is not being realistic and probably should brush up on their Econ 101.
Comment by James V. Koch — March 13, 2009 @ 9:14 am
James -
I acknowledge that a reduction in the level of deductability won’t be beneficial for giving. I’m calling into question (a) whether this is a tsunami problem or a rain storm, and (b) whether a big systems view is needed to weigh this impact with the possibility of health care reform. Thanks for your thoughts. We have much to work on.
Kate Barr
Comment by Kate Barr — March 13, 2009 @ 3:28 pm