The Arizona Republic this week explored the question of whether Arizonans are violating federal tax law by taking charitable deductions for certain contributions to private school tuition organizations. Arizona law gives up to a $1000 tax credit per couple ($500 per individual) for contributions to these groups that then grant scholarships to private and parochial school students. Parents cannot make contributions for their own children, but other relatives can. Also a number of parents engage in "swapping", or making contributions for each others children. Tax experts say that it is clearly a violation of federal law to take a federal deduction for a swap contribution, since the gift is being made to benefit oneself. A closer question arises as to contributions accompanied by "recommendations" for scholarship recipients. IRS Publication 526 spells out the rules for which charitable contributions are deductible. Separately, the entire tax credit program is being challenged in court on Establishment Clause grounds. (See prior posting.) [Thanks to Steven H. Sholk for the lead.]
Wednesday, December 30, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
.jpg)
Posts
7 comments:
I feel sorry for the parents trying to afford private religious schools --they usually aren't rich people --but the schools have expenses. Charitable deductions by relatives and friends who help send a kid to college should be allowed by tax law. It IS charity.
I just watched Dr. Phil on teen sex behavior including the school dances where sex activity is taking place. Is it any wonder that parents will sacrifice and go into debt to put their kids in what they hope is a more moral environment? Nothing on the show said that waiting for marriage should continue to be the ideal we teach. Pop culture and public sex ed is teaching kids that the Paris Hilton ideal pays off --and that sex is ok "when they are ready" --with someone of the same age rather than statutory rape age--if they use protection. Teens ALWAYS seem to have to push the parental and accepted moral boundaries --so now that we've given them so much rope--they are hanging themselves with it and ruining their lives -going from promiscuity (without protection) to alcohol-binging to cocaine, etc. And I predict they finally will not marry, not parent, and end up alone, pierced, tatooed and used up.
*cough cough* bald assertion
"Barb" is a wonderful example of why we must preserve the barrier between the law and religious "morality," nest paw? She's found a moral reason to underwrite her unexamined--but glowing--prejudices. That's kinda how state/religion "synergy" works, innit?
Huh?
Woody, I can find you more wonderful examples of why traditional morality is best --and why post-Christian secularism is producing a miserable, government-dependent society. There is a correlation between immorality and poverty in the USA.
Tax credits are a safer constitutional way to fund private and religous schools avoiding first amendment issues.
The gov't may enforce and teach good morality and rejection of perversion in public schools. All we need are better judges to rightly interpret our Constitution again.
All in due time...
You can find me studies between immorality and poverty, Barb? How does this mesh with the studies you are trying to get me between immorality and non-religious identification?
I was always under the impression that it was frequently the poorest who were more religious, not less.
--MD
Well, it's true that the working poor give more of their income proportionately to charity/church. According to the JOhn Stossel study. The religious poor are good givers --and often live within their means as well, and work.
The gov't-dep't unworking poor are another category --many of them are poor because of their choices --often a repeat of their parent's and grandparents' choices which resulted in unsupervised, poorly educated youth, whose children follow in their footsteps, making too many babies out of wedlock with too many different mates --all unable to support, supervise, educate, and train properly their many babies. And so the poverty cycle of welfare dependency continues.
And the culture beats the drum of sexual immorality as though it were simply a matter to correct by abortion or condoms--instead of the main problem resulting in a lack of commitment to kids, spouses and our personal and national futures.
I don't know the circles YOU run in, MD, but I can go out and do a study right now of neighborhoods AND churches --people I know --and prove a correlation between immorality and poverty. The religious identification for many comes after the mess they've made, when they need help and turn to God. Or when the church helps them and so they go to the church.
But I realize there are also many atheistic/secularly/liberal-minded people who are ALSO immoral (movie stars come to mind) --and as others have pointed out, they can AFFORD it --usually because their parents established them educationally and financially --but the social "under-classes" cannot afford immorality which does entrench and compound their poverty --and their general misery.
Post a Comment