The Impact of Five Different Tax Policy Changes on Household Giving in the United States

IF 2.2 Q2 PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION Nonprofit Policy Forum Pub Date : 2020-12-01 DOI:10.1515/npf-2020-0040
{"title":"The Impact of Five Different Tax Policy Changes on Household Giving in the United States","authors":"","doi":"10.1515/npf-2020-0040","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract About $450 billion were donated to U.S. nonprofits in 2019 according to the most recently available data (Giving USA Foundation 2020). However, despite the increases in charitable dollars, the share of households that donate has been declining: in 2000, 67 percent of American households donated to nonprofits, but in 2016, only 53 percent of American households donated (Indiana University Lilly Family School of Philanthropy 2019). This trend in decreasing share of U.S. households that donate to charitable causes pre-dates the passage of the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA), but could be accelerated by the recent policy changes. TCJA significantly changed federal tax policy and these changes are expected to affect charitable giving (Brill and Choe 2018; Ricco 2018; Rooney et al. 2017). Nonprofit leaders, as well as policymakers, have been exploring additional policy proposals to offset the potential negative impact on charitable giving. This paper investigates the estimated effects of potential policy proposals on charitable giving, donor incidence rates, and Treasury revenue. This study used the Penn Wharton Budget Model (Penn 2019a, 2019b) to run microsimulations of the effects of five tax policy proposals on charitable giving dollars, the number of households that donate, and the forgone Treasury revenue. The five proposals included: a non-itemizer charitable deduction; a non-itemizer charitable deduction with a cap; a non-itemizer charitable deduction with a floor; an enhanced non-itemizer charitable deduction, which provides a higher value deduction for low- and middle-income households; and a non-itemizer non-refundable 25 percent charitable giving tax credit. Of the five policy options analyzed, providing a non-refundable 25% charitable giving tax credit to non-itemizers has the largest positive impact, increasing both the amount of charitable giving dollars ($37 billion in 2018 dollars) and the number of donor households (10.6 million) of the five policy options analyzed. However, it is also the most “expensive” proposal (measured in terms of forgone Treasury revenue) for United States (U.S.) Treasury revenue (−$33.0 billion). Four of the five policy proposals bring in more charitable dollars than are lost in Treasury revenue. Four of the five policy proposals bring in more charitable dollars than were projected to have been lost as a result of TCJA. All five proposals bring in more donor households that were expected to be lost as a result of TCJA. This paper is based on a published report written and researched by [school] in partnership with the Wharton School of Business at the University of Pennsylvania and commissioned by Independent Sector. The report, “Charitable Giving and Tax Incentives Estimating changes in charitable dollars and number of donors resulting from five policy proposals,” can be found at this link: http://hdl.handle.net/1805/19515.","PeriodicalId":44152,"journal":{"name":"Nonprofit Policy Forum","volume":"74 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2020-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Nonprofit Policy Forum","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/npf-2020-0040","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

Abstract About $450 billion were donated to U.S. nonprofits in 2019 according to the most recently available data (Giving USA Foundation 2020). However, despite the increases in charitable dollars, the share of households that donate has been declining: in 2000, 67 percent of American households donated to nonprofits, but in 2016, only 53 percent of American households donated (Indiana University Lilly Family School of Philanthropy 2019). This trend in decreasing share of U.S. households that donate to charitable causes pre-dates the passage of the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA), but could be accelerated by the recent policy changes. TCJA significantly changed federal tax policy and these changes are expected to affect charitable giving (Brill and Choe 2018; Ricco 2018; Rooney et al. 2017). Nonprofit leaders, as well as policymakers, have been exploring additional policy proposals to offset the potential negative impact on charitable giving. This paper investigates the estimated effects of potential policy proposals on charitable giving, donor incidence rates, and Treasury revenue. This study used the Penn Wharton Budget Model (Penn 2019a, 2019b) to run microsimulations of the effects of five tax policy proposals on charitable giving dollars, the number of households that donate, and the forgone Treasury revenue. The five proposals included: a non-itemizer charitable deduction; a non-itemizer charitable deduction with a cap; a non-itemizer charitable deduction with a floor; an enhanced non-itemizer charitable deduction, which provides a higher value deduction for low- and middle-income households; and a non-itemizer non-refundable 25 percent charitable giving tax credit. Of the five policy options analyzed, providing a non-refundable 25% charitable giving tax credit to non-itemizers has the largest positive impact, increasing both the amount of charitable giving dollars ($37 billion in 2018 dollars) and the number of donor households (10.6 million) of the five policy options analyzed. However, it is also the most “expensive” proposal (measured in terms of forgone Treasury revenue) for United States (U.S.) Treasury revenue (−$33.0 billion). Four of the five policy proposals bring in more charitable dollars than are lost in Treasury revenue. Four of the five policy proposals bring in more charitable dollars than were projected to have been lost as a result of TCJA. All five proposals bring in more donor households that were expected to be lost as a result of TCJA. This paper is based on a published report written and researched by [school] in partnership with the Wharton School of Business at the University of Pennsylvania and commissioned by Independent Sector. The report, “Charitable Giving and Tax Incentives Estimating changes in charitable dollars and number of donors resulting from five policy proposals,” can be found at this link: http://hdl.handle.net/1805/19515.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
五种不同的税收政策变化对美国家庭捐赠的影响
根据最新数据(Giving USA Foundation 2020), 2019年向美国非营利组织捐赠了约4500亿美元。然而,尽管慈善资金增加,但捐赠家庭的比例一直在下降:2000年,67%的美国家庭向非营利组织捐款,但在2016年,只有53%的美国家庭捐款(印第安纳大学莉莉家族慈善学院2019年)。这种向慈善事业捐款的美国家庭比例下降的趋势早在2017年《减税和就业法案》(TCJA)通过之前就出现了,但最近的政策变化可能会加速这种趋势。TCJA显著改变了联邦税收政策,这些变化预计将影响慈善捐赠(Brill and Choe 2018;Ricco 2018;Rooney et al. 2017)。非营利组织的领导人和政策制定者一直在探索更多的政策建议,以抵消对慈善捐赠的潜在负面影响。本文研究了潜在的政策建议对慈善捐赠、捐赠者发生率和财政收入的估计影响。本研究使用宾大沃顿预算模型(Penn 2019a, 2019b)对五项税收政策提案对慈善捐赠金额、捐赠家庭数量和放弃的财政收入的影响进行了微观模拟。这五项建议包括:非分项慈善扣除;有上限的非分项慈善扣除额;非分项慈善扣除额有下限;加强非分项慈善扣除额,为中低收入家庭提供更高的扣除额;还有25%的慈善捐赠税收抵免。在分析的五种政策选择中,向非逐项者提供不可退还的25%慈善捐赠税收抵免的积极影响最大,在分析的五种政策选择中,增加了慈善捐赠金额(按2018年美元计算为370亿美元)和捐赠家庭数量(1060万)。然而,它也是美国最“昂贵”的提案(以放弃的财政收入来衡量)。国库收入(- 330亿美元)。五项政策提案中有四项带来的慈善捐款超过了国库收入的损失。五项政策提案中有四项带来的慈善资金比预计TCJA造成的损失要多。所有五项提议都带来了更多的捐赠家庭,这些家庭原本预计会因为TCJA而失去。本文基于一份已发表的报告,由[学院]与宾夕法尼亚大学沃顿商学院合作撰写和研究,并受独立部门委托。这份名为《慈善捐赠和税收激励——估计五项政策提案导致的慈善资金和捐赠者数量变化》的报告可在以下链接中找到:http://hdl.handle.net/1805/19515。
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 去求助
来源期刊
Nonprofit Policy Forum
Nonprofit Policy Forum PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION-
CiteScore
2.80
自引率
18.80%
发文量
23
审稿时长
7 weeks
期刊最新文献
Avoiding Burnout with Compassionate Accompaniment: A Novel Approach to Training, Selecting, Managing, and Regulating Frontline Workers Nonprofit Disaster Response and Climate Change: Who Responds? Who Plans? The Rise of Learning Pods: Civil Society’s Expanding Role in K-12 Education in the United States Rereading Salamon: Why Voluntary Failure Theory is Not (Really) About Voluntary Failures Frontmatter
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1