Senate Rejects Obama Plan to Cut Tax Breaks on Charitable Gifts

[Desertdog]

Taxpayers; Winner of round one.  Let's just hope that it doesn't come back on some midnight bill that nobody reads.

Senate Rejects Obama Plan to Cut Tax Breaks on Charitable Gifts
By Brian Faler
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aAKl4RpzgwpY&refer=worldwide


April 2 (Bloomberg) -- The U.S. Senate rejected a proposal by President Barack Obama to finance an overhaul of the nation’s health-care system by limiting the ability of the well-to-do to take tax deductions for charitable contributions.

The chamber unanimously approved an amendment to a pending budget plan that rejects the proposal to limit the size of itemized deductions that can be taken by those earning more than $250,000.

Obama proposed using the estimated $318 billion such a change would generate to help finance a health-care overhaul, which he says will cost at least $630 billion. Lawmakers said they feared the effect of such a tax change on charities.

“The Senate sent a clear message to the president,” said Senator Bob Bennett, a Utah Republican who sponsored the amendment. “Charities benefit greatly from the donations made by individuals in this income bracket, and raising taxes on these contributions would be a disservice to Americans and the millions of charities across the country.”

To contact the reporters on this story: Brian Faler in Washington at bfaler@bloomberg.net

[AZRedhawk44]

The chamber unanimously approved an amendment to a pending budget plan that rejects the proposal to limit the size of itemized deductions that can be taken by those earning more than $250,000.

So the Senate didn't not approve an amendment that rejects limiting deductions?

Or the Senate did approve an amendment not rejecting a limit of deductions?

Or... perhaps the Senate approved the deduction of itemized amendments?



Color me confused by this paragraph.

And... is the money already spent (Socialist health care in the budget), but not financed?  As our government usually does?

[Standing Wolf]

...limiting the ability of the well-to-do to take tax deductions for charitable contributions.

Only the rich give? What arrogance!

[zahc]

When the rich give a certain percentage of their worth charitably, and the poor do the same, nobody has any trouble understanding that the rich are giving way more to charity.

But somehow, when the rich and poor are taxed equally, the rich "aren't paying their share" and need to be taxed more.