Limiting Deduction For Rich Will Hurt Poor
In his May 1 opinion article “When Charity Isn’t Charitable,” Peter Singer highlights an important fact of which most of us who work in the philanthropic sector are well aware: Much charitable giving and much foundation giving do not really benefit the needy. He is correct that this is an issue that needs to be addressed.
The bottom line, however, to which Singer gives short shrift, is that the current proposal to limit the charitable tax deduction for the highest earners will take money away from countless charitable organizations that are charitable and that at present constitute an essential part of the social safety net of the United States. The use to which the additional tax revenues would be put, whether an undefined health plan or any other purpose, does not change the fact that the current proposal will hurt the most vulnerable members of our society.
Koppel Levine
Chicago, Ill.
Peter Singer writes eloquently that the tax system benefits the wealthy by allowing tax-deductible contributions to museums, art galleries, theaters and performing arts organizations. “Let’s face it,” he writes, “most of the patrons of these cultural institutions earn more than the median American income.” But the professor from Princeton would have been much more credible had he started by looking at his own house. Don’t most Princeton students’ families earn more than the median American income? Is Princeton, with a multi-billion-dollar endowment, more deserving of tax-deductible contributions than cultural institutions?
In addition, Singer’s proposed solution to the problem is wholly unworkable. He wants to allow tax-deductibility “only where there is a broad consensus that an organization is serving a valuable public purpose.” How is such a “broad consensus” to be determined? By whom? Using what standards? At what moment?
Even if it were possible to discover a broad consensus, I’ll bet Singer would be unhappy with the results. Some 90% of Americans make under $100,000 a year, and 60% of their contributions go to religious institutions. A lot of Americans are voting with their pocketbooks that religion is a “valuable public purpose.” Would Singer, who opposes the deductibility of contributions to religious organizations, be happy relying on that broad consensus?
Something should be done to rationalize the system of itemized deductions, including those relating to contributions. But Singer’s approach is not the way.
Ira Kaminow
President
Tzedakah, Inc.
Potomac, Md.
What’s so Wrong About Protecting Workers?
I never saw it coming.
After reading your excellent article about Jews in the upper echelons of today’s labor movement (“New Labor Leaders Take a Page From History”), I read the next-to-last paragraph of the otherwise great editorial “Jews and Labor” (May 1).
I felt like I was sucker punched.
What were you referring to when you wrote that “there’s plenty to criticize in the tactics employed by Big Labor and real concern that outdated attitudes are hampering American industry from growing and changing to meet tomorrow’s global demands”?
Was it labor’s so-called protectionism, which is little more than the demand that workers in foreign lands receive decent pay and good working conditions to help them, while leveling the playing field?
Was it the members of the United Auto Workers who won salaries of roughly $60,000 a year, decent benefits and a poverty-free retirement? At least up until now. Is it labor’s attempt to make it easier to form unions by giving workers the choice of either majority sign-up or a secret-ballot election?
Considering the mess that those on the “other side of the picket line” have made of the world economy, I cannot imagine what it is to which you were referring.
Carl Goldman
Executive Director
AFSCME Council 26
Washington, D.C.
Yes to Hebrew School, No to Charter Schools
As a Hebrew teacher, I could not agree more with Reuven Kalifon’s assertion that we, as Jews, are losing one of our most basic connections to our history and culture by neglecting Hebrew (“Making Hebrew a Priority,” April 17). Language expresses the values and the very soul of a people.
Hebrew-language charter schools, however, are not the answer. They subvert the public school system and private schools alike. Hebrew instruction should be the bailiwick of synagogue religious schools and Jewish day schools, not bound up with government-sponsored institutions. We must not sell our souls for a charter school system that, in any case, will benefit very few.
Kim Phillips
Kingston Springs, Tenn.
The Forward welcomes reader comments in order to promote thoughtful discussion on issues of importance to the Jewish community. In the interest of maintaining a civil forum, the Forward requires that all commenters be appropriately respectful toward our writers, other commenters and the subjects of the articles. Vigorous debate and reasoned critique are welcome; name-calling and personal invective are not. While we generally do not seek to edit or actively moderate comments, the Forward reserves the right to remove comments for any reason.
To post a comment, click to login:
Copyright © 2012, Forward Association, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
The synagogue religious schools do not have the ability to provide language skills. They have a mere three-six hours a week. Essentially, it is not really an education at all. They can prepare a child for bar-mitzvah, but they certainly couldn't provide the tools for understanding a Hebrew text. Obviously, the private Jewish day school could potentially make Hebrew a priority, but this is not a solution that all can afford (and in this economic crisis, many children are being pulled out and sent to the public schools). The charter school is a solution that all can afford (it's free).
The charter school is part of the public school system - that's why the state funds them. If one is concerned about "subverting the public school system", Kim Phillips, surely sending motivated children from good homes to private Jewish schools is not good news for the local public schools. Yet, many Jews send their children to the day schools without worrying themselves about the impact of their decision on the public schools. Why? Well, simply, the parents are interested in providing a quality Jewish education for their children. The charter school movement, if it becomes a substantial phenomenon, is interested in providing quality Hebrew education. Jewish parents should be focused on this opportunity - not on the impact it will make on other schools. I can't imagine any Jewish family protesting the existence of a French language charter school in their town because of its possible impact on the other public schools.
Finally, the charter school is constitutional. It is now a fact of life. Children study in Chinese language charter schools, in German language charter schools, etc. This option cannot be blocked. One can only wish, therefore, that the Hebrew language charter schools will succeed. Wishing to keep the children in the synagogue religious school is the same as wishing for a continuity of the existing Hebrew language failure. It would be much better if the children would go to a Hebrew language charter school, and then continue to the local synagogue school on Sundays for some religious instruction. The very best, indeed, would be that all Jewish children would go to a private Jewish school. It is, however, too expensive for many. You should give the charter school a chance.