[Foundation-l] Fwd: More on tax deductibility

[Michael Bimmler]

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Mike Godwin <mnemonic at gmail.com>
Date: Oct 24, 2007 8:34 PM
Subject: Fwd: More on tax deductibility
To: foundation-l-owner at lists.wikimedia.org




Begin forwarded message:


From: Mike Godwin <mnemonic at gmail.com>
Date: October 24, 2007 2:32:45 PM EDT
To: foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
Subject: More on tax deductibility




 From: "Sebastian Moleski" <sebmol at gmail.com>

On 10/24/07, Michael Bimmler <mbimmler at gmail.com> wrote:

Rather, what we should stress more is that tax deductibility allows
individuals to make larger contributions than they ordinarily could or
would.

There's a good reason for us not to stress tax deductibility for
donors in nations whose laws don't provide for it (or at least not if
the donations are made to a U.S.-based charity).  We would be telling
those donors they're going to get a benefit that they may not get. I
think there's a good ethical argument against doing so.


 Also, there's a logical fallacy here by stating that since only one third of
Americans/donors itemize we don't need to emphasize the deductibility.

That is not, however, the argument I make. The argument is that we
shouldn't emphasize deductibility for donors who won't or who may not
receive it.


 One problem, for example, under German law one
cannot deduct charitable contributions to foreign charities. That quite
practically means that Germans who give directly to the foundation cannot
deduct these donations on their tax return so the incentive mentioned above
doesn't exist. I would be surprised if there are not similar issues in other
countries, which we should be aware of.

This is in fact the argument I was making.

Whatever fallacies may lie in telling the truth in order to avoid
misleading potential donors, I don't believe any of them is a "logical
fallacy."

Ec writes:


 I would disagree on the demographics of American donors.  The one single
thing that triggers itemized deductions more than anything else is home
mortgage interest.  Given that we have a large proportion of students
involved in Wikipedia, and they have not usually gotten to the point of
buying a home, it would be reasonable to suggest that they are worse off
than the statistically average American.

That's a perfectly reasonable assumption.  (I could make an argument
for the converse assumption.)  But the point, of course, was that we
have no data at all about the demographics of donors.

Good statistical method (I was a student of statistics in my youth)
suggests that when you have no data at all you do best by beginning
with the Null Hypothesis.


--Mike Godwin
General Counsel
Wikimedia Foundation