On Wednesday, the House of Representatives unanimously approved a bill allowing taxpayers who make a donation to victims of the Haitian earthquake to claim a charitable donation when filing their 2009 taxes this spring.
Nonprofits who have the most to gain from this legislation, such as the American Red Cross and other disaster relief organizations, “wholeheartedly” favor this move because it encourages people to continue supporting their relief efforts.
My initial thought that this was a good thing. Anything done to motivate more people to support earthquake victims in Haiti should be encouraged and of course, is greatly appreciated. A comment made by Rep. Earl Blumenauer of Oregon, who said, “it’s a simple gesture, but it will encourage giving in this challenging economy,” has me rethinking my position.
The generosity of the American people is well documented, especially in times of natural disaster. In fact, in the week following the Haiti earthquake, individual donations to the Red Cross, alone, exceeded $130,000,000. A genuine and compassionate desire to help the people of Haiti is the motivation behind these gifts, not the promise of personal gain and incentive.
What message is being sent to all the other American charities struggling in this economy? What about concerns that as donations are redirected to Haiti there could be greater hardships here in America? Why would the House encourage people to give only to the earthquake victims when there is so much need here in our country?
Are they saying that feeding and sheltering America’s growing population of hungry and homeless, caring for our nation’s sick or preventing life-threatening diseases is any less noble than the relief efforts in Haiti?
If Rep. Blumenauer is correct and the bill is designed to stimulate giving, then the only equitable solution is to extend the same tax incentives to all tax payers making donations to any approved American charity.
-Greg Fox
do show an almost immediate decline for all Non-Relief related Non-Profits with regards to their Revenue. It may only last for between 3-5 months before rebounding
Posted by: Chanel 2.55 handbags | 20 July 2010 at 05:29
Greg, I agree with your conclusion. Unfortunately, the cynic in me says that the only reason for the legislation was for political posturing. In the end, profits for many people in 2009 were not great. Moving their shelter from 2010 to 2009 may not have been the best for them. I'm imagining that most people didn't give just because they got an '09 benefit. If they were smart, they'd hold that benefit for this year...in case things get better.
Posted by: Gsgriffin | 09 July 2010 at 16:33
Wow! You have a very informative blog, It's pretty much impressive to me. I am very happy i found this blog.Thank you for your shaving! Bless you, you are an angel! Hugs from Sunshine!!
Posted by: discount coach | 01 July 2010 at 21:15
I admit, I have not been on this webpage in a long time... however it was another joy to see It is such an important topic and ignored by so many, even professionals. I thank you to help making people more aware of possible issues.
Posted by: online management schools | 30 June 2010 at 09:14
While potentially, giving overall could increase with this kind of incentive, I believe that without question this is in part a case of robbing Peter to pay Paul. While I think that giving to the victims of the Haiti earthquake is a very valuable cause, this bill effectively gives these victims an unfair advantage over all other victims. Just because cancer does not hit people all at one concentrated time does not mean that curing it is not just as worthy, or more worthy, of a cause.
Posted by: Ryan Schoop | 05 May 2010 at 18:51
I would be curious to find out if this type of giving actually increase donations overall to organizations. With more transparency in organizations being pushed I believe that the organizations who are really working on this effort have an unique opportunity to show the world what they do. The amount of businesses that I use regularly who are encouraging those to donate to Haiti and the Red Cross seems to be more and quicker than other disasters in the sense that it seems that people know what to do now. For example how to put a banner on their website to encourage donations.
Nichole
Posted by: Nichole | 05 February 2010 at 10:02
Greg, your premise does not make sense. It only makes sense to add the "incentive" if it's an emergency situation like Haiti. If Congress wants to incentivize charitable giving it can pass other legislation.
Posted by: Jeff Schreifels | 01 February 2010 at 12:10
Does anyone know of any research that compares the effects of disaster fundraising on donor intentions in annual fundraising efforts?
Posted by: Dan | 25 January 2010 at 22:07
Actually, the limited analytics out there examining giving following both the Indian Ocean Tsunami and Hurricane Katrina (the only similar events in the last 20 years to compare Haiti against), do show an almost immediate decline for all Non-Relief related Non-Profits with regards to their Revenue. It may only last for between 3-5 months before rebounding, but for any organization who depends on their weekly deposit reports - this is a big deal.
Posted by: SF | 25 January 2010 at 16:31
I haven't seen any research, but I don't believe that contributing money to help in an emergency situation, such as Haiti or Hurricane Katrina, cuts much into the regular donation pool - especially this early in the year. I know it doesn't affect my donations to other charitable causes.
Giving is good. And knowing that your contribution is important is what motivates giving. We need to cultivate more giving, not begrudge the assistance given to others.
Posted by: Pat B | 22 January 2010 at 13:38