Reducing the income-tax deductibility of charitable gifts is a less distortionary way to raise new revenue than raising the same amount of revenue through a proportional increase in all marginal tax rates.
Responses
Responses weighted by each expert's confidence
| Participant | University | Vote | Confidence | Bio/Vote History |
|---|---|---|---|---|
 Daron Acemoglu |
MIT | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
|
||||
 Alberto Alesina |
Harvard | Did Not Answer | Bio/Vote History | |
|
|
||||
 Joseph Altonji |
Yale | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
|
||||
 Alan Auerbach |
Berkeley | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
|
||||
 David Autor |
MIT | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
Taxpayers subsidize too much non-meritorious activity through the tax writeoff. Tax liability should not fall 1-for-1 with charitable giving
|
||||
 Katherine Baicker |
University of Chicago | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
|
||||
 Marianne Bertrand |
Chicago | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
|
||||
 Raj Chetty |
Harvard | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
|
||||
 Judith Chevalier |
Yale | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
|
||||
 Janet Currie |
Princeton | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
The wording implies that distortion is bad, but the point of the charitable deduction is to encourage charity, ie to "distort" behavior.
|
||||
 David Cutler |
Harvard | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
This is true with no externalities; there are many externalities to charitable giving.
|
||||
 Angus Deaton |
Princeton | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
If minimizing distortion is your target, though seems like a very odd one.
|
||||
 Darrell Duffie |
Stanford | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
Less distortion, yes, but that is an efficiency issue to be traded off against the distributional effects. I would keep the deduction.
|
||||
 Aaron Edlin |
Berkeley | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
Arguably charity involves an externality and so should be subsidized...the giver feels good (or wouldn't do it) and the recipient benefits.
|
||||
 Barry Eichengreen |
Berkeley | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
If other distortions lead to underfunding organizations receiving charitable giving as a result of tax treatment then the answer may differ.
|
||||
 Ray Fair |
Yale | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
|
||||
 Pinelopi Goldberg |
Yale | Did Not Answer | Bio/Vote History | |
|
|
||||
 Claudia Goldin |
Harvard | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
There is a free rider problem with regard to (good) charities. Removing the deduction could be more distortionary.
|
||||
 Austan Goolsbee |
Chicago | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
Deductions/exemptions overall, yes. But charitable alone? Not clear.
|
||||
 Michael Greenstone |
University of Chicago | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
this is only half of the equation. possible that charitable deduction is most efficient way to achieve other important social goals
|
||||
 Robert Hall |
Stanford | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
Some but hardly all charitable giving generates public goods and thus relieves distortions. We should keep the good deductions only.
|
||||
 Bengt Holmström |
MIT | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
|
||||
 Caroline Hoxby |
Stanford | Did Not Answer | Bio/Vote History | |
|
|
||||
 Kenneth Judd |
Stanford | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
|
||||
 Anil Kashyap |
Chicago Booth | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
|
||||
 Pete Klenow |
Stanford | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
|
||||
 Jonathan Levin |
Stanford | Did Not Answer | Bio/Vote History | |
|
|
||||
 Eric Maskin |
Harvard | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
|
||||
 William Nordhaus |
Yale | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
Poorly conceived question. This is a tax expenditure. Why not compare to sequester as non-distortionary way to raise revenues.
|
||||
 Maurice Obstfeld |
Berkeley | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
Of course,the tax distortion aspect alone doesn't take account of possible social benefits from charitable giving. It is a narrow criterion.
|
||||
 Emmanuel Saez |
Berkeley | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
|
||||
 José Scheinkman |
Columbia University | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
|
||||
 Richard Schmalensee |
MIT | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
|
||||
 Hyun Song Shin |
Princeton | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
|
||||
 Nancy Stokey |
University of Chicago | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
Altruism is one motive for charity, and standard conclusions about "distorting" effects of taxes may not apply in settings with altruism.
|
||||
 Richard Thaler |
Chicago Booth | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
The current system stinks. Why subsidize contribtions mostly of rich home-owners? Either kill it or make it a % credit that applies to all.
|
||||
 Christopher Udry |
Northwestern | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
|
||||
 Luigi Zingales |
Chicago Booth | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
|
||||
