Okay, just taxes. I won't talk about death.
I go to a church that has a school attached to it. You know, a good Christian school. All well and good. As the calendar year ended and now as the tax season progresses, they keep reminding us of the wonders of Arizona state tax law. If you give a donation to a school (you know, like theirs), Arizona will deduct dollar for dollar that amount from your tax liability. Think about that. If you owe $5000 in state income tax and you donate $5000 to a school, the state will refund you $5000 and you owe no taxes. Outstanding!
Well, no one will be surprised to hear this, of course, but I seem to have a different slant on things. (I know! Shocking, isn't it?) I cannot seem to get my arms around that idea. Oh, sure, it's a good tax idea, even a good financial idea. But is it a good Christian idea? I mean, this is offered in church and in communications from church as something we all ought to do for charitable purposes and to support our church and our school. Is it biblical? I'm having a tough time with it.
Jesus told His disciples, "When you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your giving may be in secret. And your Father who sees in secret will reward you" (Matt 6:3-4). They tell me, "When you give to your needy church and school, be sure to properly document it so you can receive a hefty tax reward." Paul said, "God loves a cheerful giver" (2 Cor 9:7). They tell me, "God loves a financially savvy giver." Indeed, if the notion of giving to the needy is sacrifice (Mark 12:41-44) and our notion is financial gain, isn't there a basic contradiction here? In 2 Samuel 24 David followed God's instructions to "Go up, raise an altar to the LORD on the threshing floor of Araunah the Jebusite." When he got there, Araunah offered to give him the property. David told him, "No, but I will buy it from you for a price. I will not offer burnt offerings to the LORD my God that cost me nothing." If I wrote a check to the school for the amount of my tax liability and received back from the state that amount, wouldn't I be offering to God that which cost me nothing?
The liberal wing of Christendom would like to tell us that forced charity (called excessive taxation to manage the welfare state or open-borders immigration to provide for the world's needy at your cost) is a good thing. Nay, a biblical thing. A thing that Jesus commanded and endorsed. I argue that generosity is only valuable if it is voluntary. Now the church/school and the government tell me that giving to get more in return is a good thing. I'm not quite seeing it. It seems to stick someplace before my "choose to do" kicks in. Am I just confused? Is charity-required-by-law a good thing and charity to get a tax break a godly approach? I'm not getting this at all. I wonder if any of you can help.
6 comments:
This may not help. But it would be possible to think of it, not as getting something for charity, but choosing what charity you give to. With you $5000 example. If you give it to the church and get it back from the state, you're still out $5000, instead of the $10,000 if there was no break. On the other hand, that is money out of the state's pocket (not that I completely get the idea of a tax return in this economy where both the Fed and most states are in some stupendous debt). I seem to recall Jesus saying, "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's", when asked about paying taxes. We all hate taxes, but they are necessary for vital functions of society. If you give to a charity and receive it back in taxes, you are robbing the government (Caesar) of its rightful due (what is Caesar's). My old church kept track of our tithes and offerings and would send out a break down of it at the end of the year. I never had that much to give in the first place, but I never bothered to use it on my taxes. Like you said, it just feels wrong.
I did something bizarre (it seems these days) and submitted this question to my church. (You know, usually people will just complain behind their backs. I thought I'd ask them.) They told me, "We didn't realize anyone would think we were talking about giving to the church. We weren't. This is just informing our people about a sound financial approach that legally redirects state funds to things that you might like them to invest in like Christian schools. We didn't intend to equate this with charity or giving to the church. It isn't connected. And thank you very much for pointing that out."
I'd maybe suggest that intent plays a role. I don't see a problem with claiming a tax benefit for doing something that you would have done anyway. However, if one is donating only for the tax benefit it could be more problematic from a theological point of view. If the problem is that the church is encouraging people to do this, I can see that. But don't know if it's any different from churches who encourage folks to consider other giving methods instead of cash.
I think you are right when you focus on the cheerful/willing part of the equation.
Personally, if I was to donate, I'd claim the deduction/credit. As I don't see any legal or moral issues with any sort of charitable deductions.
It's not something I'd get dogmatic on, or that I'd even get too worked up over. But, it is a worthwhile question to ask.
I guess that falls into my point of choosing where your charity goes...except for the fact that you would still be taking money from the State, and even though you may not approve of everything It pays for, there are still those vital things we rely on daily.
Here’s the thing: usually when you give to charitable organizations, the amount you give is deducted from total income, so that you don’t pay tax on what you gave. So, if you gave $5000, that is just $5000 you didn’t pay income tax on. It isn’t that you get $5000 back.
BUT, it you give $5000 to a school and because of that the state gives you $5000 back, the state has a net gain of $0. That doesn’t make sense.
And if someone gives $ just to get it back, then they haven’t really given it, have they? So I really don’t understand this program as described, because it benefits no one except the person who gave money to a school - he gets the whole amount back and owes no taxes!
A couple of thoughts primarily in response to Craig, David, and Glenn.
We (American Christians) have always had to decide whether or not to deduct charitable giving on our taxes. It has always been a question. This new wrinkle is just a new wrinkle. It is my suspicion that we (American Christians) who include the charitable deduction on our taxes ought to consider that, as Jesus said, we've already received our reward. That's not a condemnation. It's just a statement.
Now, if we use this tax deduction as a means by which we can give more and especially by which we can give more to other places that are not included in our charitable deductions, that would probably be a good thing. Intent does make a difference.
Glenn, this dollar-for-dollar deduction thing is, as far as I know, unique to Arizona. Since Arizona school systems allow for private schools to be supported by public money, this allows taxpayers to direct tax money to proper tax uses in the school of the taxpayer's choice. So while it is unusual, it does seem both legal and reasonable. I wouldn't call it "charity", though.
Post a Comment