The Charitable Continuum

Q1 Social Sciences
Eric A. Kades
{"title":"The Charitable Continuum","authors":"Eric A. Kades","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3469340","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract There are powerful fairness and efficiency arguments for making charitable donations to soup kitchens 100% deductible. These arguments have no purchase for donations to fund opulent church organs, yet these too are 100% deductible under the current tax code. This stark dichotomy is only the tip of the iceberg. Looking at a wider sampling of charitable gifts reveals a charitable continuum. Based on sliding scales for efficiency, multiple theories of fairness, pluralism, institutional competence and social welfare dictate that charitable deductions should in most cases be fractions between zero and one. Moreover, the Central Limit Theorem strongly suggests that combining this welter of largely independent criteria with the wide variety of charitable gifts results in a classic bell-shaped normal curve of optimal deductions, with a peak at some central value and quickly decaying to zero at the extremes of 0% and 100%. Given that those are the only two options under the current tax code, the current charitable deduction regime inevitably makes large errors in most cases. Actually calculating a precise optimal percentage for each type of charitable donation is of course impractical. This Article suggests, however, that we can do much better than the systematically erroneous current charitable deduction. Granting a 100% deduction only for donations to the desperately poor, along with 50%, 25%, and 0% for gifts yielding progressively fewer efficiency, fairness, pluralism, and institutional competence benefits, promises to deliver a socially more desirable charitable deduction.","PeriodicalId":39577,"journal":{"name":"Theoretical Inquiries in Law","volume":"66 1","pages":"285 - 334"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-10-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Theoretical Inquiries in Law","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3469340","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract There are powerful fairness and efficiency arguments for making charitable donations to soup kitchens 100% deductible. These arguments have no purchase for donations to fund opulent church organs, yet these too are 100% deductible under the current tax code. This stark dichotomy is only the tip of the iceberg. Looking at a wider sampling of charitable gifts reveals a charitable continuum. Based on sliding scales for efficiency, multiple theories of fairness, pluralism, institutional competence and social welfare dictate that charitable deductions should in most cases be fractions between zero and one. Moreover, the Central Limit Theorem strongly suggests that combining this welter of largely independent criteria with the wide variety of charitable gifts results in a classic bell-shaped normal curve of optimal deductions, with a peak at some central value and quickly decaying to zero at the extremes of 0% and 100%. Given that those are the only two options under the current tax code, the current charitable deduction regime inevitably makes large errors in most cases. Actually calculating a precise optimal percentage for each type of charitable donation is of course impractical. This Article suggests, however, that we can do much better than the systematically erroneous current charitable deduction. Granting a 100% deduction only for donations to the desperately poor, along with 50%, 25%, and 0% for gifts yielding progressively fewer efficiency, fairness, pluralism, and institutional competence benefits, promises to deliver a socially more desirable charitable deduction.
慈善事业的延续
有强有力的公平和效率的论点,使慈善捐赠给汤厨房100%扣除。这些争论并不适用于为豪华教堂机构提供资金的捐赠,但根据现行税法,这些也可以100%扣除。这种鲜明的二分法只是冰山一角。从更广泛的慈善捐赠样本中可以看出,慈善是连续的。基于效率的滑动尺度,关于公平、多元化、机构能力和社会福利的多种理论规定,在大多数情况下,慈善扣除应该是0到1之间的分数。此外,中心极限定理强烈地表明,将这些基本上独立的标准与各种各样的慈善捐赠结合起来,会产生一个经典的钟形正态曲线,即最优扣除,在某个中心值处达到峰值,在0%和100%的极端情况下迅速衰减为零。鉴于这是现行税法下仅有的两种选择,目前的慈善扣除制度在大多数情况下不可避免地会出现重大错误。实际计算每种慈善捐赠的精确最佳百分比当然是不切实际的。然而,本文建议,我们可以做得比目前系统性错误的慈善扣除要好得多。只对极度贫困的人的捐赠给予100%的扣除额,对捐赠给予50%、25%和0%的扣除额,这会导致效率、公平、多元化和机构能力方面的好处越来越少,从而承诺提供一个更受社会欢迎的慈善扣除额。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Theoretical Inquiries in Law
Theoretical Inquiries in Law Social Sciences-Law
CiteScore
1.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
23
期刊介绍: Theoretical Inquiries in Law is devoted to the application to legal thought of insights developed by diverse disciplines such as philosophy, sociology, economics, history and psychology. The range of legal issues dealt with by the journal is virtually unlimited, subject only to the journal''s commitment to cross-disciplinary fertilization of ideas. We strive to provide a forum for all those interested in looking at law from more than a single theoretical perspective and who share our view that only a multi-disciplinary analysis can provide a comprehensive account of the complex interrelationships between law, society and individuals
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信