• Home
  • About
    • For What it’s Worth
    • Michael Rushton
    • Contact
  • AJBlogs
  • ArtsJournal

For What It's Worth

Michael Rushton on pricing the arts

Limiting the charitable deduction

April 11, 2013 by Michael Rushton 1 Comment

marginal ratesAs my blog-neighbor Lee Rosenbaum reports, the proposed 2014 budget from the White House would cap the tax benefit for charitable donations at 28%. In the U.S., where donations are deducted from the income tax base, the actual rate at which your donation is subsidized is your marginal tax rate, i.e. the rate that applies to your last dollar of income earned. Marginal tax rates rise with income, with a top rate of 39.6%, and so a wealthy donor who gives $100 to the local museum gets an income tax reduction of $39.60. The budget proposal would limit this reduction to $28. For taxpayers with a marginal tax rate of 28% or less, the proposal has no impact.

Would this lower the amount people give to nonprofits? Yes: all econometric evidence points to the fact that the rate at which donations are subsidized matters for the amount people give. We may have anecdotes about people who claim the tax break doesn’t matter, but in aggregate it does.

Does that mean the budget proposal is wrong? Not necessarily. There is nothing particularly special about the status quo of the tax deduction. And there are legitimate questions about whether higher income donors ought to receive a larger tax break than lower income donors, as the current system holds. There are alternatives: Canada, for example, gives a tax credit on donations, the same rate applying to all donors.

I wrote a short paper in 2010 – with commentary from my colleagues Kirsten Gronbjerg and Les Lenkowsky – when this proposal was first floated, and I’ll post it here because none of the key issues have changed since then.

Share:

  • Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
  • Click to share on X (Opens in new window) X
  • Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn
  • Click to print (Opens in new window) Print

Related

Filed Under: Uncategorized

Trackbacks

  1. For What It's Worth | Local, state, federal: public funding for the arts in the U.S. says:
    February 1, 2016 at 4:04 am

    […] smaller, poorer, but well-run schools. The problem is exacerbated by the richest donors receiving a larger per-dollar tax subsidy for their donations than those in lower tax brackets, or who fail to itemize donations at all. […]

    [WORDPRESS HASHCASH] The comment’s actual post text did not contain your blog url (http://www.artsjournal.com/worth/2013/04/limiting-the-charitable-deduction) and so is spam.

    Reply

Leave a Reply to For What It's Worth | Local, state, federal: public funding for the arts in the U.S. Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Michael Rushton

Michael Rushton taught in the Arts Administration programs at Indiana University, and lives in Bloomington. An economist by training, he has published widely on such topics as public funding of the … MORE

About For What It’s Worth

What’s the price? Everything has one; admission, subscriptions, memberships, special exhibitions, box seats, refreshments, souvenirs, and on and on – a full menu. What the price is matters. Generally, nonprofit arts organizations in the US receive about half of their revenue as “earned income,” and … [Read More...]

Archives

Recent Comments

  • antonio c. cuyler on Equality, the arts, and the problem of expensive tastes: “I applaud your courage in dissenting, Michael, even if it may place you at odds with the sector. I also…” Feb 2, 10:57
  • Michael Rushton on Equality, the arts, and the problem of expensive tastes: “Thank you David. In terms of costs, the quick, and I think too-easy answer, is cost-disease, which affects any sector,…” Feb 1, 15:04
  • David E. Myers on Equality, the arts, and the problem of expensive tastes: “Hi Michael, Always grateful for your perspectives, though as you know, I do not always agree. At the risk of…” Feb 1, 11:16
  • Michael Rushton on Equality, the arts, and the problem of expensive tastes: “Thank you, antonio. There’s a lot here – I’ll answer bit by bit… 1. I’m not sure the “equality vs…” Jan 29, 09:43
  • antonio c. cuyler on Equality, the arts, and the problem of expensive tastes: “As economists educated to believe that “some inequality” is not bad, I appreciate reading how you and Robert Reich think…” Jan 29, 09:21
Return to top of page

an ArtsJournal blog

This blog published under a Creative Commons license

Copyright © 2026 · Magazine Pro Theme on Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in