…that you might like to return: The new tax bill, signed into law by President Trump the other day.
Evangelical leaders warn of ‘devastating’ impact of GOP tax plan on the charitable deduction
The gloom-and-doomers that are worried about churches and other charities losing revenue as a result of the tax policy changes in the new bill (most provisions go into effect January 1, 2018) are thinking along these lines:
- Those who give to save on taxes would save less if their tax rates are lowered; thus, there is less incentive to give to their church or other charity.
- Because the standard deduction is being doubled, less taxpayers will be itemizing their deduction. Charitable giving is one of the major areas that filers itemize so some may feel less incentive to give to their church if they aren’t going to itemize deductions.
There are other disincentives to charitable giving in the tax bill but these are the two big ones.
The tax bill does throw charitable giving into uncharted territory in that the tax saving incentives for giving to churches and other charities are drastically changed. Naturally, those who depend on charitable giving are concerned about the impact.
In churches I’ve pastored there have always been a few people whose income and tax exposure were such that they would give a year end gift to the church to lower their tax bill. Other than these few, I doubt many church members thought much about their tax bill when writing their checks to the church for the Lord’s work.
I’m not buying the gloom-and-doom. People that support our churches do so because they believe it to be right, proper, and obedient to the Lord. This article seems to be a much less cynical, less apocalyptic view of charitable giving and the new tax law.
Besides, if churches depend heavily on government tax policy for their financial needs, maybe we ought to spend more time preaching and teaching biblical stewardship and less time complaining about tax incentives and disincentives.
One thing that the new tax bill might do, though, is motivate some wealthy church members to give more in 2017, since the tax savings will be less beginning next year. I’d guess that most wealthy members are more savvy about tax matters and already know this. I would suggest perhaps an increased gift to the Lottie Moon offering as a good destination for that year-end gift.
Have a nice Christmas Eve service, brethren and sistren. And don’t be thinking about tax policy today.
__________________
…and I think I will make a year-end Lottie Moon gift of one million this year. I’m making the gift in my own personal cryptocurrency. It will be up to David Platt to figure out how to spend it. He’s a smart guy. I figure my cryptocurrency is as good as anyone elses. No need to thank me…I’m happy to be on the cutting edge here. I once read a book on Bitcoin and knew less after reading than when I started.
A lot of people are highly motivated to give to the church rather than let the government have it. If it is between the government and the church, they’d rather the church get it. If it doesn’t matter and it is between the church and their family or them giving to indivuduals, they’d rather their family get it.
This is going to be huge. I’m not being cynical. If it is just 15-20% of giving effected, you are talking about ministries and churches shutting down.
The response will be, “Come on, I don’t think it will affect that much.” Okay. How can I argue with that. I think it is the biggest move against the ministry of the church and parachurch ministries that we’ve seen in our lifetimes and there was barely a peep about it. Of course, we have to trust God and He will provide. But, the effect will be large, I believe.
Ah, my gloom-and-doom friend. I am aware that you circulate among some non-church charitable NGOs. Maybe they are anticipating much more here. I’m not thinking churches will see much different, unless it is increased giving because the standard deduction has been doubled.
I agree that it is the biggest change in this area of tax policy in our lifetimes. You call it “the biggest move against the ministry of the church and parachurch…” Are you positing a motive in the tax bill to “move against”?
No, William, I am talking about what churches face. I still work with churches on association staff and pastored for 16 years. I know all about motivations, responsibilities, and what people go through. I’m being realistic. I’m not thinking too much about secular non-profits at all. Many of the larger ones are funded by big givers or corporate money or foundations. I’m talking about regular churches that survive off of the gifts of middle class people who itemize deductions.
I’m not posting a “motive.” I think it is likely sheer ignorance that put us in this position. Politicians rarely think about consequences to their actions. Republicans get a pass from Evangelicals on most things, so the church says little. If it were Democrats doing this, we’d have been all over it accusing them of I’ll motives far and wide.
No, I don’t think there is a motive. I do think the results will be very damaging to the church financially.
Thorn-Bucks!
I like the sound of it: “thorncoin…thornbucks…”
Donate now to get maximum tax benefit. I’ll take dollars, please.
No one, and I mean “No one” donates $1 to save 37 cents.
People who give like to have the giving count toward a reduction in their taxable income.
However, they do not give to get the deduction.
Also, the amount you can deduct from your itemized deductions is already capped. It’s not limitless. You apply a formula to see if you can take all of your itemized deductions.
It may have some impact on the amount given by wealthy individuals, but that depends on their overall tax bill and other things.
There may be other charitable giving issues (e.g. charitable trusts) that may have been affected, but I don’t know.
No one does it for the sheer savings of it. Many people are motivated because there is a tax deduction. Y’all can disagree and say it isn’t a factor. I expected that. But, it is a factor. All giving will not cease, no. But, enough to make a difference will end. Perhaps that will be good in the long run for the health of the church.
I’m thinking not so much if any impact on churches. Guess we will see.
I’ve never been all that excited about depending on government tax policy for church welfare.
Well, me neither. But, the post-WW2 Christian ministry system was built, in part, with tax deductible donations in mind. Now that this is going away, it will have an effect.
non profits will be affected far more than evangelical churches.
Non-profits and charities do a lot of good for people. Even if Evangelical churches see no affect, our communities will be worse off and the poor will suffer. Government entitlements are going to be cut. Individuals cannot personally make up the gap. Churches won’t step in to assist the poor to make up for what is lost. Non-profits will struggle now more than they have previously. My first concern is the church, but since that concern is being discounted, will the churches that we believe will do okay make up the gap in the help offered by community based non-profits? Will giving increase?
The opportunity will be there.
Cash Charitable contributions go to Line 16 of the Sch. A on a tax return. Sch. A determines whether you are taking standard deduction or itemizing deductions. Even with a doubled Standard deduction, most of your biggest givers will still be itemizing in all likelihood. Doom and gloom not necessary.
I think the percentages of filers who take the standard deduction is estimated to increase from the 60s to more than 90. That has some folks spooked.
Somebody has been hitting the spiked eggnog a little early before going to spinning class. I am laughing out loud at the verbal gymnastics NeverTrumpers must utilize in order to characterize a tax break as bad financial news for Christians and churches.
I suppose it is also bad news that we are no longer funding foreign abortions, that we have made strong judicial appointments, that we have recognized Jerusalem as the rightful capital of Israel, and that our economy is thriving.
Merry Christmas! And may God give all of us the vision needed to discern whether something is a blessing or a curse.
Well, Rick, we are “Pravda” – according to your insults. Someone sent me that one – thought it would bless me.
Since your site has become an anti-Calvinist Pulpit and Pen and you encourage your readers to debase us, I wonder why you return here.
Try a bit less laughing and a bit more reading. You might learn something.
The tendency to see everything as political is disheartening. Some things aren’t about whether we support Trump or not.
“NeverTrump” is the fallback accusation, the whipping boy for those who don’t want to think through an issue on its merits. Just make it binary – you are with us or against us (Us, of course, not being the church or the Bible, but the GOP). We must support the GOP at all costs.
A lot of us try to make our decisions not based on Trump or party lines, but just on what seems right or wrong. It is sad that some cannot seem to think independently of party loyalty.
Strong judicial appointments? Haven’t there been 4 nominations rated “not qualified” by the ABA? Brett Talley had never tried a case. Matthew Petersen had never tried a case, or even taken a deposition by himself. He could not answer basic legal questions during his Senate hearing. Trump is filling vacancies to be sure, but many of them appear to be no more qualified to be judges than he is to be president. But hey, some of us are getting a tax cut.
Bill Mac,
First Merry Christmas brother.
Second, this from the WaPo (no conservative rag) may beg to differ on your opinion on the judicial nominees, the recent few nominees that were forced to exit quickly notwithstanding. A couple of fumbles to be sure. But it appears that DT is on a record pace with young, conservative judge appointments. I just don’t see the data for your “many of them appear to be no more qualified…” statement.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-one-area-where-trump-has-been-wildly-successful/2017/07/19/56c5c7ee-6be7-11e7-b9e2-2056e768a7e5_story.html?utm_term=.df824fd303d7
Les: Young? Yes. Conservative? Well maybe, in the worst sense of the word. Prosecuting gays? Denying counsel to death row inmates? That’s a bit too right wing for me. Lastly, young and conservative does not mean competent. Youth and inexperience go hand in hand.
You know that this success, if that’s what you want to call it, has nothing to do with Trump. He doesn’t know who these people are. He’s signing off on names some of his people are giving him and with the rule changes in the Senate, it only requires a majority vote. Any Republican president would likely have as good a record (or probably better since they would probably give them nominees a bit more thought).
I will admit to possibly exaggerating. I suggested many of his nominees were as unqualified to be judges as he is to be president. I frankly doubt that’s possible.
“You know that this success, if that’s what you want to call it, has nothing to do with Trump. He doesn’t know who these people are. He’s signing off on names some of his people are giving him…”
Bill Mac, is there any POTUS before DT who couldn’t be characterized the same way? The point is that however he is getting to the point of making appointments, they are overwhelming good (from conservative standpoint) appointments and a series reversal of 8 years of liberal appointments by O. Hey it’s not me saying this really. The WaPo said it.
I know that people who detest DT are loathe to give him and his administration any kudos at all. The DT “haters” re best exemplified by MSNBC and especially their Morning Joe crew. There are a lot of evangelicals who seem to get their talking points from MJ. It becomes hilarious really.
Not saying you Bill are like that. I just digressed a bit.
God bless.
“and a series reversal of 8 years of liberal appointments…” should read, “and a **serious** reversal of 8 years of liberal appointments…”and
“The DT “haters” re best exemplified by MSNBC…” should read ” The DT “haters” **are** best exemplified by MSNBC…”
Sure, I’m sure all Presidents get judicial recommendations. However I suspect they consider them more thoughtfully than DT. I’m all for reasonably conservative judges, but first and foremost I want them to be experts in the law.
There is very little good that I would credit Trump for that is unique to him, ie, that couldn’t and wouldn’t have been done by a more reasonable, rational, and sane Republican who wasn’t in bed with Vladimir Putin. His negatives monumentally outweigh any positives he might have accomplished.
Did you hear the praise fest the Repubs laid on him after the tax bill? Have you seen anything like it, ever? Do you think they really meant it? Of course they didn’t. They are playing Trump for a fool because he’s a sucker for praise. After the sycophantic way Pence acts around Trump, I wouldn’t vote for him to be a dog catcher.
Yes, because we have a warm body in the White House with an R after his name, he can be persuaded in his more lucid moments to do something we like. But his negatives simply aren’t worth it to me.
Rick, it’s Christmas. Do you ever take a break?
I have legitimate concerns that not being able to itemize charitable giving will affect how much some give. You don’t share those concerns? Fine. That’s your opinion. I’ve talked to several pastors who are also concerned. I’ve heard from some people who know what they’re talking about who have said this will, in fact, affect things. I’m no expert in tax law, so I defer to those who are rather than just think all will be the same.
Merry Christmas, Alan.
I hear from Trump supporters that the economy is thriving, but where?
Well, there’s no question the economy is doing well. “The economy” is a macro level measurement, so you can’t talk to a person who’s out of work or a community that’s depressed and judge how “the economy” is doing. The stock market is up, and unemployment is low. By any reasonable measure the economy is doing well. I’m not sure Trump is responsible for it, but it does bring up the legitimate question of why then do the corporations need a huge tax cut? It is interesting how short a memory people have when they think their pockets are going to be lined a little. This president has embarrassed the white house, his staff, and his country day after day for an entire year. The bar is so low for him that if he doesn’t tweet something stupid or untrue or untrue and stupid on any given day, people comment on how presidential he is. But he’s had a single legislative victory in the entire year that is going to enrich some people, and now he’s great.
Someone mentioned post WW2 tax structure.
I think that is worth following up on.
First, charitable giving in the US has been dramatically affected since the continued transfer of private dollars to public coffers via taxation.
Charitable giving and church work was huge in the 19th century. Churches and other religious groups built colleges, hospitals, orphanages, nursing homes etc. With the transfer of so much wealth to the public sector, people have less money to give.
If it were up to me, in addition to what has Ben done, I would like to see the rates reduced more drastically, though I would like to see a larger percentage of people paying something.
I can say unequivocally that the intent of this tax bill was not to hurt charities. The belief is that it won’t.
The main thing that will help charities is an economy based on economic freedom.
Since I and my wife took over her parents house after her mom died, we haven’t a mortgage.
So if anything, I will have even more to give to my church, not less.
I never gave to charity to save money on taxes, for you never save as much on taxes as you gave away. If more money is your aim, dont give any away. But if sharing what God has blessed you with is your aim, cheerfully give no matter what the tax break might be.
And if one is only giving to save on taxes, they are doubly foolish: Foolish first because God will not bless that kind of giving, and foolish second, because they may pay less taxes but they will have less money as well.
I’m a nevertrumper who promised That when he does or says something that I can affirm or show support of….I will…
The tax cut/reform while certainly not perfect is one of those things.
I’ll say it. I’m glad this bill has become law.
I’m mostly not. This is going to explode the debt and deficit. There are some people who need it who will get a little extra income and I’m glad for that, but that could have been easily done without giving away the store to people and corporations who don’t.
I’m all for tax cuts, but not if we have to borrow the money from China to do it.
JFK and the Democrat party used to disagree with you and the hysterics pontificated about this tax bill by CNN, MSNBC, and every single Democrat now.
Many dems voted for and rejoiced at RR tax cuts too – but not today.
“exploding the deficit” by a trillion dollars is also a fear tactic and does not HAVE to be so if cuts are made – plus it’s based on an understanding of continuing current spending levels with assumed increases in spending – for example I know 500 plus million could and should be cut immediately from federal budget….Planned Parenthood also Reduction of UN funding too….and those two are painless!
I hope promises of cuts are kept – but if growth happens as predicted And has been trending recently … the 1 trillion dollar “price tag” Will be usurped by increased revenue. More people working, more jobs, more corporate profits to be spent in America = more revenue to US treasury.
Also Bill – for what it’s worth I caution you not to become what you criticize died in the wool Republicans and “evangelicals” of doing – acting reflexively instead of thoughtfully.
I have and continue to oppose President Trump because they canceled it and as a president… But that doesn’t mean that everything I’m doing is automatically wrong with you just because he di I have and continue to oppose President Trump because they canceled it and as a president… But that doesn’t mean that everything is automatically wrong just because he didn’t say that d it or said it.
Yes Tarheel. Cuts would help. But from where? Are you going to further weaken the social safety net? Block grant that money to states to create more room? Where are people going to go who are currently depending on that money? They should get jobs you say? Well about 70% of them are kids, seniors, or permanently disabled. So they can’t easiog get jobs.
Guess where they will wind up? At your church asking for assistance. And guess what you may not have as a result of this tax bill? Extra dollars for benevolence funding. Because people are giving less.
Vicious cycle. And the short term tax relief benefits for the middle class will go away over 3-7 years. Then it will be about what it is now. Or worse. But guess whose taxes stay cut? Businesses. And who will be out of office for sure in 7 years to reap the benefits of that.
I will give you one guess.
This tax bill is not good for anyone, except the corporate titans who already have more money than they need.
Wow….let me try that again….
Also Bill – for what it’s worth I caution you not to become what you criticize died in the wool Republicans and “evangelicals” of doing – acting reflexively instead of thoughtfully.
I have and continue to oppose President Trump both as candidate and as a president… But that doesn’t mean that everything he says and does is automatically wrong simply because he did or said it.
Ryan – it’s fair to say that the ONLY reason the tax cuts aren’t permanent because the dems REFUSED to play along or even discuss ANY tax plan whatsoever – so the possibility of the required 60 votes for permanent individual tax cuts was impossible – it’s NOT fair to say that Trump and Republicans only wanted to “benefit Titans” so they made corporate cuts permanent and not individual. In fact it would be more honest to say it was the republicans desire to make them all permanent…
The dems literally created that which the rail against “individual tax cuts are temporary”.
Also, I never mentioned Medicare cuts (though I’ve been saying for 20 years that i’d like to see it move toward opt out personal savings options and privatization – but that’s another topic).
There are lots of places (I mentioned 2 above) for cuts that won’t affect those you mentioned.
Another, that I’ve supported again for the last 20 years or so… is to block grant a portion of education monies to the states (cut the rest) – each of which already have a dept. of Education (it’s redundant) and end the department of education.
Another – drastically cut back the EPA and block grant a portion (and cut the rest) of the money budgeted there to the states – every state has a similar enviormental organization – it’s redundant.
Another – drastically cut back the DOT and block grant a portion (and cut the rest) of the money budgeted there to the states – every state has a DOT – it’s redundant.
I’m sure “I” just found a trillion or so dollars in the 5 areas I’ve mentioned.
*medicare or social security…
Dave,
I don’t lay my predictions of the debt and deficit solely at Trump’s feet. He didn’t write the tax bill, he only signed it. Congress could have delivered something far more balanced, and he would have signed it. Of course the tax cuts could be offset with spending cuts, and of course they won’t be. And we don’t need to just offset the tax cuts, we are so far in debt that the numbers are almost meaningless. All politicians are responsible for this. We need deep cuts that no one will be willing to make.
Scripture does not specify that supporting the work of the Lord was dependent on the US Tax Code. In a 2011 CT article, “The Chronicle of Philanthropy reported that donations dropped 11 percent at the nation’s 400 biggest charities, yet donations to ECFA member charities stayed strong. An empty tomb, inc. report found that evangelicals give churches about 4 percent of their income (and all Christians only 2.43 percent), far less than the biblical 10 percent tithe.” So if God’s people, gave as an act of worship, there would be no problem in funding God’s work through His Church. So the bigger question is whether or not those that claim to me “Disciples” are actually saved in the first place. If they are saved, then they need to start walking in obedience re: God’s provision for his Church and His people.
To individuals: If you are only giving to your church (and/or other charities) because it gives you a tax break, you are doing it wrong.
To churches (and/or other charities): If you are afraid you are going to lose out on donations because people won’t be giving since they don’t need the tax break, what in the world are you teaching from the pulpit?
People should “give” because they support the work of the church/charity, because God has blessed them and so they can bless others, because it makes them happy to help other people. Giving because you get a tax write-off is not true giving, at least not in any sense worth the true meaning and spirit of the word/concept.
The people who will not give as much because they won’t get the tax break, IF they are even saved to begin with, will look back at this time with regret. But I suspect more people than not, are the type to look and say, “I gave money, that is good, that means I am saved right?” But again non-sacrificial giving is not really giving is it. Even in a works based system these people would be SOL.
Sorry for the rambling but I just look at this and say to those who won’t continue to give, “Good riddance to bad rubbish, and LET the door hit you on the way out!”
People do the best in wealthy countries. From the rich to the poor.
Countries become wealthy and stay wealthy where there is economic and political freedom.
The greatest threats to economic and political freedom are government and the complete absence of government. We have never had a complete absence of government in the US, so that’s not a legitimate threat.
The continued growth of government and the transfer of wealth from citizens to government is a constant threat in a democracy where issues are hyped and demagogued to convince people to give more of their wealth to the public sector. For example, healthcare will be better if we turn it over to the government. If that were true, the best and most innovative healthcare in the world would be in states where healthcare is centralized. That is objectively not true.
If the government could take in more money it would “lift” people out of poverty. The government never lifted anyone out of poverty. If that were true, communism would have been successful. It wasn’t. It never is.
Excessive regulation also restricts freedom and retards growth. This creates a drag on economies and makes people poorer.
A government cannot tax “business” anymore than it can tax a table. Only people pay taxes.
When “business” is taxed, the tax is paid by 3 groups of people: shareholders, employees (because their wages are lower), and consumers (because prices are higher).
If a country has tax policies that are harmful, capital will go to other countries. Hence, the reduction in the corporate rate will encourage investment in the US, as the rate is now in line with most developed nations.
The debt increased in the last 8 years from 12 trillion to over 20 trillion.
The new tax bill is projected to increase the debt by 1 trillion in 8 years.
You don’t “pay for” real tax cuts.
If you cut taxes in one place, but have to raise them in another place, that is not a tax cut. That’s just moving taxes from one place to another.
Tax cuts can be “paid for” by 1) cuts in spending, 2) borrowing (which we will do whether or not taxes are cut – see the last 8 years), or 3) economic growth (this is the hardest to predict). Or a combination of all 3.
These are random economic facts that I am just throwing out like chum in the ocean.
Thank you Louis. Very well said and true.
Louis: I don’t disagree but I always find it curious that people who want to reduce the size of government almost never want to reduce the size of the military (or rather, reduce the defense budget). They complain (rightly so) about waste, fraud, and abuse in every level of government except the military. I had one gentleman tell me that’s because most of the military are Republicans.
Bill Mac:
That’s due to the cultural history of our country. The left has hated the military and law enforcement since the 1960s. Before that, many leftists were proponents of military power.
I think it’s also because of the perception that the military is perceived as something good, and used in the pursuit of the interests of the nation generally, and not in political ways.
The same thing could be said of the police. No one complains about the police budget. Right?
But Eisenhower was the first to warn of the “military industrial complex” and the indiscriminate funding of that.
And remember a government that has a small military and a small police force is hard to be very oppressive.
The problem in today’s world, however, is that one crazy guy with the right tools can destroy a city. It requires assets deployed around the world to keep that from happening.
We should always be aware of the potential abuses of government, including domestic law enforcement and national armies.
We have been very blessed in this country. The U.S. Military has never been used against its own citizens. The Posse Comitatus (sp?) laws prohibit that.
And most people have favorable experiences with law enforcement.
But it’s not hard to imagine how that could change.
Say the laws in this country change to prohibit the speaking of certain things in the pulpit, as is currently allowed in some countries. Or home schooling is ruled unconstitutional, and states or the feds begin to move against it. Both of these are high on the agendas of some leftists.
Law enforcement would be used to enforce these rules. If that were to happen, it would not take long to see a change in attitude among Christians toward law enforcement.
Louis,
I think it is as Ryan said, people lack critical thinking skills now, so they have a knee jerk reaction. On our side, more military spending is always better, more prison time is always better. More guns are always better. Climate change is a hoax. On their side, more taxes is always better, more government control is always better, you get the idea. People despise moderates but I see moderates as people who are willing to entertain ideas rather than simply letting “the party” do their thinking for them.
“…simply letting “the party” do their thinking for them.”
Or perhaps people who differ from liberals and moderates or you on certain issues have actually used critical thinking skills themselves and…wait for it…come to a different conclusion than liberals and moderates, or you.
Bill:
Good points to consider.
There are 2 types of moderates, or it could be said that moderates have 2 personality traits.
One is that Moderates are thoughtful. They do not rush to judgment. They are not so tightly aligned that they cannot transfer their allegiances to support a good idea.
But two, Moderates are timid. They essentially wait to see which side is most popular, and they rush to that side in the close, often subconsciously, because they hate conflict. They would allow a good idea to wither on the vine or starve for support because they dither in deciding while this issue is eventually decided.
I can see that both of these things are often true.
Louis: Sure, I can see that, however I don’t think that timidity is limited to moderates. Recall those who called out Trump for admitting to sexual assault who later took part in the sickening praise fest of the Republicans after the tax bill passed. Recall those who strongly called out an accused pedophile in Alabama who backed off once Trump embraced him. Think about all the Democrats who demonized Bill Clinton accusers who now want all women believed. I think putting your finger to the wind is a general characteristic of politicians.
I don’t disagree.
But usually avowed liberals and avowed conservatives have firm opinions. Moderates often eschew strong opinions. Hence, they are moderate.
Yeah, I see your point. I’m thinking more of people who hold their opinions but don’t necessarily toe the party line, like someone who is pro-life but not a climate change denier, or a fiscal conservative (I wish this was a real thing) who doesn’t oppose affirmative action.