How do charitable donations fit into your finances?

[Tabaxus]

Ok assume your marginal tax rate is 25% and you give $1000 to your church, come April 15th you get a refund for $250, your outgoing is now $750 but the church still has $1000 thanks to the goverment handout via kickback on your taxes. Sure it will not show up on the church books as you are merely a conduit for that handout. Would you feel better about social security if the goverment gave it all to the church and let them redistribute it .
To be honest I have nothing against charities/churches getting money in this fashion but what I do object to is the hypocrisy of those who rant about forced giving and goverment stealing BS on one hand while happily laundering goverment money to their organization of choice with the other.
Someone else was talking about ideological purists, I'm hardly that but I do appreciate a bit of honesty in the argument complain all you want about the goverment ( we all do) but do not deny that you are also forcing others to give.

Getting to keep some of your OWN money via a tax deduction is not getting a government handout.  I'm afraid you are really off the mark with your understanding of this.

No, you are entirely off the mark.  Tax expenditures in the form of a tax deduction and a government expenditure in the form of a payment in cash are *exactly* the same thing from a macroeconomic perspective.  There is absolutely no difference between the government handing $300 to your church and the government saying you can pay $300 less in taxes because of money you gave to the church--government is out $300 either way.  No serious thinker about tax policy tries to argue differently.

Can argue all you want about whether the government being out money is a good or a bad thing, but argue from a place that is actually grounded in economics, not ridiculous "IT'S MY MONEY ANYWAY" talking points.

[kkbmustang]

I just read through this thread from the beginning. Interesting discussions - hoping to pull it back to the side of cordial. Ahem.

With respect to making the biggest philanthropical impact with your charitable dollar, look here:

http://www.impact.upenn.edu

They've done a lot of research already in different focus areas (hunger, health issues, child poverty, etc.)

A little background since I've been away from the forum for a while: Personally, my husband and I are not FIRE yet, but we realistically are close-ish under certain scenarios. I've got a serious medical condition that forced me to change my employment status to part time. This impacts a lot of things, including charitable cash giving due to incomprehensible medical expenses.

Our approach to giving is rooted deeply in our Christian beliefs, although we are not legalists. We were also raised in families where giving was modeled by our parents, both with their money and their time. And let me make clear that we do not come from money. I was the first woman on either side of my family to earn a college degree and my parents lived in a single wide trailer when they first got married. My husband grew up on a cattle ranch.

We are both fortunate and incredibly driven/hard workers. It actually legit brings us joy to be able to give. It's as natural as breathing to us. In the good years before I got hurt, we gave more (10-12 percent of gross). Lately, it's much less (maybe 3-4 percent of net). Our giving behavior would not change based on changes in the tax code.

Our giving over time has consisted of a combination of the following - think of it as a pie chart with each form of giving taking up different fractions of the pie based on our life circumstances:

1. Cash to our church (which we designate for allocation to particular ministries - children's ministry, international missions, and a program similar to Habitat for Humanity but the houses are built in our church parking lot then moved to the actual land in a specific neighborhood)

2. Time to our church (serving on committees, hubby helped build/served as a crew chief for 5 or 6 houses before I got hurt, I spent several weeks on a mission in Africa, writing content for the church website, etc.)

3. In kind donations to the LLS, a battered women's shelter and other charities that pick up at my home

4. Monthly checks to my 85 year old grandmother to supplement her Social Security

5. Cash and in-kind goods to various things at my kids' school that are charity related

6. Random requests for donations from friends

7. Time to non-church charitable organizations

This for sure has "slowed us down" regarding FIRE, but we feel strongly about charity, in whatever form, being a priority and modeling that for our children as well.

Sorry for length, I just wanted to give the OP a thorough answer.

[forummm]

Ok assume your marginal tax rate is 25% and you give $1000 to your church, come April 15th you get a refund for $250, your outgoing is now $750 but the church still has $1000 thanks to the goverment handout via kickback on your taxes. Sure it will not show up on the church books as you are merely a conduit for that handout. Would you feel better about social security if the goverment gave it all to the church and let them redistribute it .
To be honest I have nothing against charities/churches getting money in this fashion but what I do object to is the hypocrisy of those who rant about forced giving and goverment stealing BS on one hand while happily laundering goverment money to their organization of choice with the other.
Someone else was talking about ideological purists, I'm hardly that but I do appreciate a bit of honesty in the argument complain all you want about the goverment ( we all do) but do not deny that you are also forcing others to give.

Getting to keep some of your OWN money via a tax deduction is not getting a government handout.  I'm afraid you are really off the mark with your understanding of this.

No, you are entirely off the mark.  Tax expenditures in the form of a tax deduction and a government expenditure in the form of a payment in cash are *exactly* the same thing from a macroeconomic perspective.  There is absolutely no difference between the government handing $300 to your church and the government saying you can pay $300 less in taxes because of money you gave to the church--government is out $300 either way.  No serious thinker about tax policy tries to argue differently.

Can argue all you want about whether the government being out money is a good or a bad thing, but argue from a place that is actually grounded in economics, not ridiculous "IT'S MY MONEY ANYWAY" talking points.

A tax deduction for your charitable contribution is you deciding where to spend my money. Because if you aren't paying as much tax, that means I (and the other 310 million of us) have to pay more to make up for it. This may be a good or bad policy, but that's what it is.

[forummm]

I see my donations in terms of the public interest and not necessarily charity (although they are aligned and you can donate to the places I have/do/will work). I give first by my employment. I work far more than I need to, and for much less than I could make elsewhere. When I do RE, I'll be giving back more through whatever organizations I work with. RE gives me more opportunity to volunteer or contribute in some way. I also plan to work longer than I need to to have extra cash piled up for more giving over the years.

[Chris22]

A tax deduction for your charitable contribution is you deciding where to spend my money. Because if you aren't paying as much tax, that means I (and the other 310 million of us) have to pay more to make up for it. This may be a good or bad policy, but that's what it is.

That theory only works if the gov't spending is tied to tax receipts.  It's not.  The government spends whatever it wants, and it collects whatever taxes people pay, and those two amounts are only nominally related.  It's not like a restaurant bill where it comes and it's $100 and if I only pay $25 you have to make up the difference. 

[2lazy2retire]

A tax deduction for your charitable contribution is you deciding where to spend my money. Because if you aren't paying as much tax, that means I (and the other 310 million of us) have to pay more to make up for it. This may be a good or bad policy, but that's what it is.

That theory only works if the gov't spending is tied to tax receipts.  It's not.  The government spends whatever it wants, and it collects whatever taxes people pay, and those two amounts are only nominally related.  It's not like a restaurant bill where it comes and it's $100 and if I only pay $25 you have to make up the difference.

IDK,  but either way the OP's church is still getting a goverment handout. Plus, using your argument everyone who moans about having to fund social security has zero case - as its like only nominally related to their taxes;).

[bookish]

We have donated 10% of our gross income all of our working lives. Our belief is the money (or rather, the opportunity and ability to earn it) is a gift and we are giving back a portion of that. I recognize not everyone shares this belief. Just explaining why we do what we do.