The Monkey Cage

The first justification is that the deduction is necessary in order to account for the proper base of taxable income; the deduction, in other words, is no subsidy at all. The second justification is that the deduction efficiently stimulates the production of public goods and services that would otherwise be undersupplied by the state. The third justification links the incentive to the desirable effort to support a pluralistic civil society in a flourishing democracy. I believe that only a version of this third argument stands up to scrutiny.

That is from this paper by Rob Reich, a political theorist at Stanford. The puzzle arises in part because the deduction costs the U.S. government a substantial amount of tax revenue:

Because the tax deduction constitutes a subsidy – the loss of federal tax revenue – it is no exaggeration to say that the United States currently subsidizes the liberty of people to give money away, foregoing tax revenue for an activity that for millennia has gone unsubsidized by the state. Charitable giving in 2006 was just shy of $300 billion, costing the U.S. Treasury roughly $50 billion in lost tax revenue.

In a recent talk at GW, Reich also discussed notable flaws in the current implementation of this deduction. For example, it can be claimed only by those who itemize deductions (a minority of taxpayers). So if Reich and I each give $100 to Oxfam, but only he itemizes, only he gets a deduction. Reich says:

Thus the subsidy is capricious, for its availability depends on a characteristic, one’s status as an itemizer, that has nothing whatsoever to do with the value of giving.

Reich also raises questions about the ways in which this deduction can encourage inequality. See his discussion of charitable foundations for public schools in this New York Times article. In essence, parents can set up these foundations and claim their donations as tax deductions. The state subsidizes a means by which schools whose students come from wealthier families can improve even more.

This is not a thorough summary of Reich’s argument, of course. See the paper for more.

Posted by John Sides at 09:02 AM | Permalink | Comments (4)

Bloggingheads have posted a dialogue I did some days ago with Cass Sunstein (I’ve embedded it below; if it doesn’t work for you, go here instead). As John Quiggin noted a few weeks ago, Cass is pretty skeptical about the virtues of Internet communication; he believes that it is quite likely to lead to political polarization and perhaps extremism, and not to the kinds of thoughtful, deliberative exchanges between left and right that he’d like to see. I suspect that he’s largely right on the empirics - but as I argue in the bloggingheads, there’s a strong case to be made that deliberation isn’t the only aspect of politics we should treasure. We should also be interested in increasing political participation. Unfortunately, there’s evidence that the two may be partly antithetical to each other - exactly the kinds of cross cutting exchanges between people of different political viewpoints that Cass wants to promote may decrease people’s willingness to participate in politics.

Continue reading "Deliberation vs. participation in blogs" »

Posted by Henry at 11:33 AM | Permalink | Comments (5)