“It is one of the most beautiful compensations of life that no person can sincerely try to help another without helping themselves.”
- Ralph Waldo Emerson
I got this schedule from Paul Caron’s TaxProf Blog which contains selected data from Democrat Vice Presidential candidate, Joe Biden’s, federal income tax returns:
Obviously, Caron is interested only in pointing out the relative paucity of Mr. Biden’s charitable contributions:
It is jarring that a couple earning over $200,000 per year would give as little as $2 per week to charity. This giving compares very unfavorably to John McCain, whose tax returns show that he gave 27.3% – 28.6% of his income to charity in 2006-2007. During the same period, the Obamas’ tax returns show that they gave 5.8% – 6.1% of their income to charity.
Perhaps the Obama-Biden campaign needs a new slogan: “Change You Can Believe In (As Long As Someone Else Pays For It)”
Others have jumped on this as well. See MSNBC’s A Look at Biden’s Tax Returns, The National Review Online’s Joe Biden and American Charity and American Thinker’s Joe Biden, Cheapskate.
It is “gotcha” politics at it’s worst and it’s palpably unfair.
Don’t get me wrong, I do appreciate the irony: A pro-tax Senator who has claimed for decades to be more compassionate than his political opponents turns out to be not very caring after all. And Biden would deserve all of this derision if you could actually determine the level of a man’s compassion by analyzing a document that even Albert Einstein found baffling.
But the simple truth is you can’t. The entries on a man’s tax return tell us very little about either the quality or degree of his empathy.
There are at least four reasons for this:
1. Not all charitable giving is deductible charitable giving
If a taxpayer gives $2,000.00 a year to a single, specific homeless person, that is a gift for tax purposes, not a deductible charitable contribution. You wouldn’t be able to find it anywhere on his federal income tax return. To claim a deduction for a donation, the taxpayer must have contributed either money or property to a qualified tax-exempt organization.
2. Giving property and cash are not the sole measures of man’s compassion
Many people, perhaps most, give their time to charity (for which you cannot claim a charitable contribution) rather than money or property. According to VolunteerAmerica.org, in 2007 61 million Americans volunteered over 8 billion hours of their time to charitable causes.
No information was available as to the amount of charitable contributions these good people claimed on their federal income tax returns.
3. Politicians who claim large charitable deductions may do so simply for political reasons
Third, politicians seeking high office (Biden ran for President, remember) know their tax returns will eventually be disclosed to the public. Therefore, the more cynical politician will make sure that his charity is given in cash or property to established, tax-exempt organizations. This way, when his tax returns are revealed to the public, he won’t be accused, as Biden has, of being a tightwad and a hypocrite. In other words, it is possible that the politician who has a large charitable deduction on his tax return is merely more calculating than the one who doesn’t.
Has anyone considered the possibility that the fact that Mr. Biden’s tax returns contain small charitable contribution deductions is evidence that he is less Machiavellian than those whose returns seem to show greater philanthropic spirit?
4. True charitable giving is done anonymously and not for personal aggrandizement (or to obtain a tax deduction).
The most altruistic form of giving is the anonymous donation. Some people give their time, their money, and their hearts to others and never tell a soul about it.
And then there are those who give to others the most precious gift of all: Life.
Like the man on a sinking ship who gave his life jacket to a child and remained with the ship until he drowned. Or like the humble Dutch woman who day after day risked her own life to feed her Jewish friends who were hiding in an attic from the Nazis. And like the thousands of people every year who donate their body organs to save the lives of loved ones and friends.
Can the value of these acts be located anywhere on a federal income tax return?
Perhaps, just perhaps, the same can be said for a certain 29 year old senator-elect who, while comforting his two injured sons shortly after learning that his wife and infant daughter had died in a car accident, trembled with sadness and told his colleagues who had implored him to return to the Senate, “Delaware can get another senator, but my boys can’t get another father.”
5 responses so far ↓
1 Jim // Sep 22, 2008 at 6:00 pm
While the man’s tax return may not provide his full measure, it is another datum for the electorate to consider. What we have here is an admitted plagerizer who presumes to lecture Supreme Court nominees. Now we know he’s a cheapskate to boot. Biden is simply not fit for his present office, much less the vice presidency.
2 Peter // Sep 23, 2008 at 10:23 am
Jim, the whole point of the post is that it is impossible (and unfair) to judge the degree of Biden’s largesse by looking at a single line on a tax return.
I have problems with Biden, as well. But this isn’t one of them.
3 H. Craig Bradley // Oct 4, 2008 at 1:26 pm
I disagree with the author’s assertion that a man’s giving is not relevant. In fact, how a person manages her/his money is the single most revealing fact about the person’s overall character, and values. Motive and intent (of giving or lack of) are reflected indirectly by implication and context. It is way more important than lifestyle (appearances), especially in our culture. It speaks louder than words, louder than pundit’s opinions, or any other single factor or source, in my opinion. This is one possible reason why the law requires candidates for the presidency and vice presidency to file an official financial disclosure.
The reason America is about to further leap “whole hog” into socialism and further change our society away from empowering the individual rests with our collective values/behavior. Any public anger today directed towards the “markets” or Federal government “regulators” is actually caused by too many of our leaders, bankers, and other highly placed individuals who are all too selfish and chinsy in the overall conduct of their lives and careers. It goes beyond multimillion dollar annual payoffs for executives and CEO’s of publicly listed companies and Govt. entities such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
4 Peter // Oct 6, 2008 at 12:22 am
Craig,
“I disagree with the author’s assertion that a man’s giving is not relevant.”
That’s not what I said. His giving IS relevant, but the amount shown on his 1040 is not indicative of all of the charitable giving a man does. It is just one, very small, part of it.
“Motive and intent (of giving or lack of) are reflected indirectly by implication and context. It is way more important than lifestyle (appearances), especially in our culture.”
The “appearance” you speak of IS the charitable contribution line of the form 1040. Candidates for office KNOW their tax returns wil be made public and can manipulate this number for appearances sake.
You have to look at everything a man does to determine his character. A single line on a 1040 form tells us very little.
5 The First Tax Return: The Obama’s File Jointly // Apr 16, 2009 at 9:04 am
[...] I have written about this before in Form 1040, Schedule A, Line 19: The Measure of a Man’s Compassion. [...]
Leave a Comment