September 11, 2007
Do Arts Donors Deserve Tax Breaks?
“It seems absurd, at this late date, to have to defend the obvious merits of tax deductions for charitable donations,” writes Lee Rosenbaum on Culturegrrl.
Ms. Rosenbaum, a freelance cultural reporter, takes umbrage at an article in The New York Times that decries charitable contributions for arts groups. Ms. Rosenbaum says the reporter, Stephanie Strom, “looks with favor” on social-service groups including the Salvation Army and America’s Second Harvest and she “casts cold prose on tax-deductible benefactions for cultural institutions, hospitals and stem cell research.”
While Ms. Rosenbaum acknowledges that it’s possible a majority of Americans would not favor “direct tax-dollar allocations” for some cultural groups, she argues that if such groups were denied tax-deductible status for gifts, organizations would lose their appeal for donors. The groups would then require more government aid and might fold when such support failed to appear.
“The bottom line is that charitable deductions are a good deal not just for the donors but, even more so, for the general public,” she writes.
Do you think donors should get a tax break for gifts to arts groups? Share your thoughts by clicking on the comment link below.
—Nicole Lewis
Comments
Commenting is closed for this article.
Previous: Charity Contests "Inaccurate" Newspaper Portrayal
Next: Foundation Workloads
How Ms. Rosenbaum knows my opinion of social service organizations and cultural institutions is beyond me. She never contacted me to ask. Rather, she chooses to attribute opinions to me that were expressed by others in the story — in their words, not mine — and expresses opinions of her own in characterizing the temperature of my prose.
— Stephanie Strom Sep 11, 01:28 PM #
From a Swedish perspective, this debate is very interesting. We have no tax incentives for donations, neither to social causes nor to the arts. The reason? Democracy, of course. It seems strange to let wealthy people decide what kind of art should be supported, for example. It is much better to do it in an open process, where the representatives are elected on a democratic basis, and not because they happen to have money.
So it is all a question of how you view the world, and the difference between the US and Sweden is amazing! Although I believe we are moving towards an American way – for good and for bad…
— Emma Stenstrom Sep 12, 04:05 AM #
To Ms. Stenstrom: Individuals should be able to support what they will with their own money.
Taxing away significant amounts of one’s income, to be distributed as politicians and special interest groups decree, is ethically and morally wrong. This process is “sanctified” through calling it “democratic,” but what it really boils down to is allowing a majority of people to do things – such as seize money and property, conduct mass murder campaigns called wars, etc – that if done by a single individual, a private organization or company, would be defined as crimes.
Hopefully for Ms. Stenstrom and other Swedes, they do indeed move toward a more “American” – I would characterize it as “pro-liberty” – system in which individuals are free to make most of their choices about how they live their lives and what their money is spent for.
— Sam Davis Sep 12, 01:25 PM #