Skip to main content

Charity Donors Say They’d Keep Giving If Tax Deduction Went Away, But They’re Not So Sure About You

A new study, released yesterday, finds that Americans would keep giving, even if the tax deduction for charitable gifts went away. However, they’re certain that charitable donations would decline as a result.

As Congress and the President mull over how to make up ground against the burgeoning U.S. deficit, one idea that frequently comes up is eliminating tax deductibility for charitable donations.

The demographically representative study found that most Americans think that would lead to fewer donations to charitable causes. The survey, from Grey Matter Research of Phoenix, found:
  • 30% feel there would be no real change in giving in the U.S.
  • Six percent believe charitable donations would rise.
  • “Almost two-thirds of Americans say charitable giving in the U.S. would decrease, including 29% who believe it would decrease a little, and 36% who believe it would decrease a lot,” the survey found.
Even though the issue has become a kind of political football (See picture above), how Americans feel about the issue varies little between Independents, Republicans, and Democrats.

“Sixty-three percent of Republicans, 68% of independents, and 61% of Democrats believe charitable giving in this country will decrease if contributions are no longer tax deductible. Similarly, this is the perspective among 62% of those who identify themselves as politically conservative, 62% of self-described moderates, and 72% of political liberals. Whether they feel giving will decrease a lot or a little also shows no variation by party or perspective.”

How then to reconcile the seemingly contradictory finding that those surveyed think their contributions would remain consistent, while they think other Americans would give markedly less?

Says Ron Sellers, president of Grey Matter Research, “It’s fascinating that so many people believe their own giving will remain stable even without the deduction, but that other people will give less. Obviously, both perspectives can’t be right for everyone. People are either being unnecessarily pessimistic about what other donors will do, or unreasonably optimistic about their own behavior.”

I suspect the pessimists are right about their peers and wrong about themselves.

Across the globe, the countries that allow a tax deduction for charitable donations have a more robust and healthy Third Sector than the countries that don’t.

Tax deductibility would have a severe effect on the charities in the United States if it was taken away or limited.

Comments

Very interesting post.

As charity is a cumulative and collaborative process, Most charity donors will keep giving even Tax deduction went away and there will be no major change in Charitable Giving

Popular posts from this blog

Cause Marketing: The All Packaging Edition

One way to activate a cause marketing campaign when the sponsor sells a physical product is on the packaging. I started my career in cause marketing on the charity side and I can tell you that back in the day we were thrilled to get a logo on pack of a consumer packaged good (CPG) or even just a mention. Since then, there’s been a welcome evolution of what sponsors are willing and able to do with their packaging in order to activate their cause sponsorships. That said, even today some sponsors don’t seem to have gotten the memo that when it comes to explaining your cause campaign, more really is more, even on something as small as a can or bottle. The savviest sponsors realize that their only guaranteed means of reaching actual customers with a cause marketing message is by putting it on packaging. And the reach and frequency of the media on packaging for certain high-volume CPG items is almost certainly greater than radio, print or outdoor advertising, and, in many cases, TV. More to

Why Even Absurd Cause-Related Marketing Has its Place

Buy a Bikini, Help Cure Cancer New York City (small-d) fashion designer Shoshonna Lonstein Gruss may have one of the more absurd cause-related marketing campaigns I’ve come across lately. When you buy the bikini or girls one-piece swimsuit at Bergdorf-Goodman in New York shown at the left all sales “proceeds” benefit Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center . Look past the weak ‘ proceeds ’ language, which I always decry, and think for a moment about the incongruities of the sales of swimsuits benefiting the legendary Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center. Cancer has nothing to do swimming or swimsuits or summering in The Hamptons for that matter. And it’s not clear from her website why Shoshanna, the comely lass who once adorned the arm of comedian Jerry Seinfeld, has chosen the esteemed cancer center to bestow her gifts, although a web search shows that she’s supported its events for years. Lesser critics would say that the ridiculousness of it all is a sign that cause-related marketing is

A Clever Cause Marketing Campaign from Snickers and Feeding America

Back in August I bought this cause-marketed Snickers bar during my fourth trip of the day to Home Depot. (Is it even possible to do home repairs and take care of all your needs with just one trip to Home Depot / Lowes ?) Here’s how it works: Snickers is donating the cost of 2.5 million meals to Feeding America, the nation’s leading hunger-relief charity. On the inside of the wrapper is a code. Text that code to 45495… or enter it at snickers.com… and Snickers will donate the cost of one meal to Feeding America, up to one million additional meals. The Feeding America website says that each dollar you donate provides seven meals. So Snickers donation might be something like $500,000. But I like that Snickers quantified its donations in terms of meals made available, rather than dollars. That’s much more concrete. It doesn’t hurt that 3.5 million is a much bigger number than $500,000. I also like the way they structured the donation. By guaranteeing 2.5 million meals, the risk of a poor