My interactions with government were far easier and more quickly resolved than with health insurance companies, for example.

Health insurance companies aren't really a good example because, like utilities, you don't usually have a choice in which you use. Yes, lots of people have private coverage, but the majority are covered by their employer's plan, which the ultimate consumer doesn't choose.

I know it may come as a shock, but you don't have to be rich to make charitable contributions.

Why would that come as a shock to me? I give to charity, heck I run a charity, and I'm no where near rich.

What you described of course happens for some rich folks, but I'm guessing an awful lot of charities would go under with[out] the $50 and $100 contributions form Joe and Betty six pack.

I'm sure they would, I know that mine wouldn't be able to operate without small individual contributions. But people give to charities like that because of a strong connection to what they're doing, and those people would be the most inclined to continue giving even if taxes change. People looking at the tax benefits of donations don't bother seeking out Joe and Betty six pack, they give to one of the widely known mega-charities, which don't really need those $50 and $100 donations.

Davebo - What should you do? I don't know? Maybe get a clue? The majority of mortgage problems are limited to a very small number of counties throughout the entire US. Do you think that charitable contributions only come from the residents of these same counties?

Michael - I know it may come as a shock, but you don't have to be rich to make charitable contributions. What you described of course happens for some rich folks, but I'm guessing an awful lot of charities would go under with the $50 and $100 contributions form Joe and Betty six pack. On a percentage basis, my charitable contributions greatly exceed the Obamas, the Gores, etc., as I suspect an awful lot of middle class folks' contributions do. But I digress.

Funny what less disposable income will do to rationale people.

Rich people don't donate post-tax income to tax deductible charities. They donate long-term investments so that they don't have to pay capital gains on the interest from the sale. It seems, to me anyway, more likely that the reduction in value of those investments that has slowed giving, not reductions in disposable income.

abortion on demand may even someday slip into abortion upon the government's demand as is China -but slaughterers of babies could care.

I'm pretty sure the pro-choice movement will fight that.

Do away with federal income taxes, establish a national consumption tax, and people will have more money in their pockets.

Wow, magical consumption tax ponies! If you don't reduce the amount of tax revenue taken in my the government, people (as a whole) will not have more money in their pockets, no matter what you tax. You're just redistributing wealth.

And of course, I blame Obama. What else could I possibly do?

Besides, this discussion rather misses the point - charitable contributions are by their very nature not amenable to rational analysis. I suppose changes in the tax laws might make some changes at the margins, but those changes will be swamped by the changes in the overall economy.

Good charities do have plans and many of them do a fantastic job of serving those they choose to help. Many charities take things other than cash and most welcome any commitment of time. And what's wrong with anyone feeling good for helping someone else? Must all help be impersonally provided by a faceless bureaucracy to be truly valid and worthy? Can we only feel good about helping people if the funds are funneled through the state?

You are apparently just saying anything to get a response, but there's no point in trying to reason with anyone who still wants to blame Bush for everything that happens. And I won't touch your comment about masturbation with the proverbial ten foot pole.

But to get rid of it only for the people with high marginal tax rates (that is, the deduction is more valuable) makes no sense whatsoever.

For my part, I will comment that I received only requests for charitable giving in the mail at home today. All prominently identified that the donations were tax deductible. They either think that encourages giving, or they fear we're all idiots like Tom Daschle.

Want to beat estate tax? Does your son or daughter love to sail and scuba? Set up an oceanographic research institute, and have have your child donate his time (expenses reimbursed of course).

Can we beat such things? Are there limits on donations to which you or your kin are principals?

That might be where I'd look.