20 Factoids about Planned Giving. Some May Surprise You.

There is no such thing as a “typical” planned giving program.

The reality is that there are an infinite variety of such programs. They come in various forms in varied degrees of sophistication. Planned giving programs vary by organization type, donor population, organizational budget, and a host of other factors.

A small organization with a limited budget and a modest individual-donor pool may simply promote the idea of naming the charity in a will. By contrast, a large organization with a significant development budget may promote a broad array of planned giving vehicles from bequests to charitable gift annuities to trusts.

Despite the differences from one planned giving program to the next, there are a large number of points of commonality.

This list of 20 factoids about planned giving has been drawn from my book Donor-Centered Planned Gift Marketing. I’m sharing it here because I’ve found, when I’m speaking around the country, that these are some of the tidbits that people have found particularly interesting and/or that they have been surprised by. Here are the factoids:

1.  Bequests are generally regarded as the most common form of planned gift. Charitable gift annuities come in at a far distant second.

2.  Almost everyone has the ability to make a planned gift. Planned giving is not just for the wealthy. Consider the following:

• Among survey respondents over age 30, 69 percent expect to leave an inheritance. (The Stelter Company)
• People over the age of 50 control 70 percent of all privately held financial assets in the United States. (U.S. Census Bureau)
• A 2005 study found that 50.3 percent of U.S. households owned equities in some form. (Investment Company Institute and Securities Industry Association)

3.  Bequests are the major gift of the middle class. Many individuals wish they could provide significant current support to the nonprofit organizations they love. Unfortunately, they’re not in a financial position to do so. They either don’t have the cash to give or need to preserve their resources to live off of during retirement. Planned giving gives these individuals the opportunity to make a significant gift without pain. For example, a donor can leave her home to her favorite charity upon her death. Or, a donor can give to his favorite organization and receive an income for life. Planned giving allows donors to make more significant gifts than they might otherwise be able to make.

4.  The average age of someone who makes their first charitable bequest commitment is 40-50. This means there is a great deal of time between when the donor includes a charity in his will and when the gift will be realized. That’s one reason why sound stewardship is essential. A nonprofit organization wants to remain in the donor’s will and encourage the amount of that commitment to grow overtime.

5.  High-income women are more likely than men to use complex gift planning tools. While it is unclear why this is the case, we do know that high-income women are more willing than men to establish a trust, for example. You can read more about the giving of women by reading my post “Men v. Women: Who are the Best Planned Giving Prospects?”

Special Report: “Supercommittee” Fails!

[Publisher's Note: "Special Reports" are posted from time-to-time as a benefit for subscribers and frequent visitors to this blog. "Special Reports" are not widely promoted. To be notified of all new posts, including "Special Reports," please take a moment to subscribe in the right-hand column.]

The Congressional Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction, the so-called Supercommittee, announced that it will fail to reach a bi-partisan deficit reduction deal by the established deadline. The Committee issued a statement on November 21, 2011.

The failure of the Supercommittee leaves many questions unanswered for the nation, in general. It also leaves many open questions where the nonprofit sector is concerned:

• Will Congress allow the Bush Tax Cuts to expire next year? How will that impact charitable giving?
• Will Congress tinker with the charitable giving tax deduction? Both Democrats and Republicans on the Supercommittee have expressed a willingness to reduce, in some way, the charitable giving tax deduction. So, what will Congress ultimately do and how will that impact giving?
• How will Congress’ failure to reduce the deficit impact the stock market and the overall economy? Today, the Dow fell 248.85 points (-2.11 percent) while the NASDAQ dropped 49.36 points  (-1.92 percent). How will this ultimately impact philanthropy?

One thing is certain: When it comes to tax rates, tax deductions, the stock market, and the economy, uncertainty is likely to remain at least until the 2012 election. This will obviously create challenges for all Americans. However, it will continue to present unique challenges to everyone involved in the philanthropic planning process.

The Supercommittee has done the nation a massive, bi-partisan disservice by failing to do its job. If there were a shred of honor left in Washington, DC, every member of the Supercommittee would resign. The Supercommittee is not looking very “super” at the moment.

That’s what Michael Rosen says… What do you say?

Special Report: U.S. Senate Finance Committee Holds Hearing on Charitable Giving Tax Deduction

Yesterday, the U.S. Senate Finance Committee held a hearing on the charitable giving deduction and the various proposals to alter the deduction. You can find testimony from the hearing here:

http://finance.senate.gov/hearings/hearing/?id=915d5477-5056-a032-524b-feac6e9e3321

Of greatest interest was the Congressional Budget Office’s testimony that indicated the potential harmful effects of proposals that would change the deduction (please see the table on page 2):

http://finance.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/CBO%20Testimony1.pdf

The Committee discussed various proposals such as implementing the Obama Administration’s proposed 28 percent cap on itemized deductions, replacing the deduction with a tax credit and imposing a floor that would only allow a tax break for charitable contributions that exceed two percent of adjusted gross income.

The Association of Fundraising Professionals has concerns about the proposals because all of them, as discussed, would have a negative impact on giving. A recent study reported in The Chronicle of Philanthropy suggests that the imposition of the 28 percent cap would reduce charitable giving by $2.9 billion to $5.6 billion. A study also indicated that a 12 percent tax credit could decrease donations by $9.7 billion to $24.6 billion. In its testimony during yesterday’s hearing, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that a deduction floor of two percent of adjusted gross income would result in the loss of $3 billion in charitable contributions.

Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT), ranking member of the Senate Finance Committee, echoed AFP’s concerns during the hearing when he stated that “from my perspective the tax reform options being discussed today are options that target charitable giving concocted by those who, hungry for more taxpayer dollars to finance reckless government spending, are now casting their sights on the already depleted resources of charities and churches.”

It is worth noting that a floor for deductions (either two percent of adjusted gross income or $500 for individuals and $1000 for families) was discussed many times. So, we likely will be confronting both the cap and a floor from here on out.

To give voice to the nonprofit sector during this debate, AFP has launched the Engaging Networks platform that will allow folks to contact their Members of Congress online. Whether or not you are an AFP member, you can send your own letter using the platform here:

http://e-activist.com/ea-action/action?ea.client.id=1686&ea.campaign.id=12160

I want to thank Jason Lee, AFP’s General Counsel, for granting his permission for me to share the above information, for his tireless work on this issue, and for launching the Engaging Networks platform.

That’s what Michael Rosen Says… What do you say?

Special Report: Congress Considers Charitable Tax Deduction “Reform”

From time to time, as a special benefit to my blog subscribers, I’ll provide a bonus post that will not be broadly promoted. This special report concerns the debt ceiling/deficit reduction negotiations in Washington, DC.

While it looked like the debt ceiling/deficit reduction negotiations would not include reductions or caps to the charitable giving tax deduction, the so-called Senate Gang of Six has resurrected the idea. You can read the outline of the Gang of Six plan by clicking here. The reference to the charitable giving tax deduction is on page four.

Meantime, a coalition of nonprofit organizations and professional associations has sent a letter to Sen. Max Baucus, Chairman of the Finance Committee, to urge him to oppose any reduction or cap involving the charitable giving tax deduction. You can download a copy of the letter, including the list of signatories, by visiting http://mlinnovations.com/in_print.

Though late in the negotiations, it’s still too soon to know where things will end. In Washington, things can change at a moment’s notice. I’ll do my best to keep you updated on the important news. If you have any insights, please share them below.

That’s what Michael Rosen Says… What do you say?

Special Report: CBO Issues Report on Charitable Deduction Options

The U.S. Congressional Budget Office has released a paper that examines various proposals for charitable giving tax deductions. Specifically, the CBO looked at 11 options for altering the current income tax treatment of charitable giving, which can be grouped into four categories:

• Retaining the current deduction for itemizers but adding a floor.
• Allowing all taxpayers to claim the deduction, with or without a floor.
• Replacing the deduction with a nonrefundable credit for all taxpayers, equal to 25 percent of a taxpayer’s charitable donations, with or without a floor.
• Replacing the deduction with a nonrefundable credit for all taxpayers, equal to 15 percent of a taxpayer’s charitable donations, with or without a floor.

You can download a PDF of a summary of the report here: Summary of CBO Tax Deduction Report.

You can download a PDF of the complete report here: CBO Report on Charitable Deduction Options.

You can read the article “Study Shows How Changes to the Tax Code Could Affect Giving,” from the May 31 issue of The Chronicle of Philanthropy, by clicking here.

As you review the report, you will see that the CBO has found that tax policy can have an impact on charitable giving. However, readers should remember that the greatest influencer of charitable giving is Gross Domestic Product. Giving has been consistently about two percent of GDP since records have been kept. Any government policy that encourages growth in GDP will lead to growth in charitable giving. Any government policy that slows GDP growth or causes a drop will also impact charitable giving in like fashion.

[This has been a Special Report. From time to time, I will provide Special Reports on important and/or breaking news items. My regular weekly post will appear tomorrow.]

That’s what Michael Rosen Says… What do you say?

Taxes Part 5: What Should the Nonprofit Sector Do?

This week, I’ve examined the following facets of the charitable giving tax deduction issue:

• Taxes Part 1: What is the Federal Government up to?
• Taxes Part 2: Proposals to eliminate or reduce the charitable giving deduction.
• Taxes Part 3: Proposal to replace the charitable giving deduction with a tax credit.
• Taxes Part 4: Why have a charitable gift tax deduction?

In this, my final post in the series, I want to explore what the nonprofit sector should do. Some have suggested to me privately that the sector should not be engaged in the debate. These folks suggest that our elected officials should legislate based on what is best for society and that special interest groups, including the nonprofit sector, should remain silent. I, for one, think that that way of thinking is simply nonsense.

U.S. Capitol

In a democratic society, citizens not only have a right to participate in the process of formulating government policy, we have a responsibility to do so. Furthermore, those who work in the nonprofit sector and/or with donors are closest to the philanthropic process. Therefore, we are in a unique position to help legislators understand the possible impact of various tax proposals. We can and must be a resource to our elected officials.

As a sector, we must fund the research necessary to inform the debate. We must fully understand the possible impact of the various proposals that have been made concerning the charitable giving tax deduction. We must understand the cost/benefit of each of the proposals to donors, to nonprofit organizations, and to the U.S. Treasury. And, we should be proactively looking for and recommending more meaningful charitable giving incentives that we might encourage the government to consider. With facts in hand, the sector should attempt to develop a consensus position and a strategy for advancing that position.

To some degree, what I have outlined is coming to pass. While the body of available research is incomplete and occasionally contradictory, it has helped us develop an understanding of how tax policy might impact philanthropy. The Center on Philanthropy at Indiana University is preparing a white paper on the subject which, when released in the near future, will further our understanding. Our professional associations and a number of major charities have already formed a coalition to represent tens of thousands of charities on this issue. Coalition members are already suggesting steps individuals can take to advocate for keeping the current charitable giving tax deduction system. I would respectfully request that the coalition also consider what giving incentives might work even better, both for the sector and society in general.

Finally, there are a number of things individuals can and should do. In order to be a good citizen, we must be informed. Therefore, I encourage everyone who works or volunteers for a nonprofit organization and/or who donates to one to be fully informed about the various proposals floating around Capitol Hill that could impact philanthropy, positively or negatively. Once well informed, I encourage you to join the discussion. Join the discussion here, at your organization’s board meetings, at your local professional association gatherings, on listserves, etc. I also encourage you to share your thoughts with your U.S. Representative and Senators — yes, even if you disagree with the coalition’s position.

The Association of Fundraising Professionals has put together an excellent resource page on its website which you can find by clicking here. The page includes links to proposal documents, a link to a terrific summary article from The Chronicle of Philanthropy, suggested talking points, and a sample letter to elected officials. I strongly encourage you to visit this useful resource.

Once legislation is actually introduced in Congress, I hope you will communicate with your Representative and Senators. I also hope you will encourage your donors to do likewise. It takes surprisingly few letters and phone calls to influence elected officials. And, when those letters and calls come from your donors who are also their donors, members of Congress will be even more likely to listen.

Finally, if you are a U.S. citizen and a member of AFP, I also encourage you to support the AFP Political Action Committee, the only PAC representing the nonprofit sector and promoting philanthropy. You can learn more by contacting AFP International Headquarters.

That’s what Michael Rosen Says… What do you say?

Update — Feb. 14, 2011:

As of this morning, we have a “new” proposal in the form of Pres. Obama’s FY2012 Budget. Unfortunately, a cap on itemized deductions (including charitable deductions) for high-income taxpayers was included in the budget to pay for an AMT fix. The Obama proposal is indeed the same as introduced over the past two years—a 28% cap for individuals earning more than $200,000 and couples/families earning more than $250,000.  Here is the language:

“…the value of certain tax expenditures.—

“The Administration proposes to limit the tax rate at which high-income taxpayers can take itemized deductions to a maximum of 28 percent, affecting only married taxpayers filing a joint return with income over $250,000 (at 2009 levels) and single taxpayers with income over $200,000.  The proposed limitation would be effective for taxable years beginning after December 31, 2011. As indicated in the discussion of adjustments to the BEA baseline earlier in this Chapter, the Administration proposes to offset the first three years’ cost of extending AMT relief with savings from this proposal.”

You can find this language on page 212 of the document (it’s .pdf page 44) of this link: <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2012/assets/receipts.pdf.

Of course, this proposal is not the final word.  As the budget debate moves forward on Capitol Hill, anything can happen.  So, as a sector, we will need to remain vigilant.

Update — April 18, 2011:

A recent Gallup Poll reveals how Americans feel about the idea of eliminating the charitable giving tax deduction, and other deductions, to lower the overall federal income tax rate or to reduce the federal budget deficit.

For the charitable giving tax deduction, the poll found:

“…to lower the overall federal income tax rate…”  26% favor while 71% oppose eliminating the charitable giving tax deduction.

“…to reduce the federal budget deficit…”   29% favor while 68% oppose eliminating the charitable giving tax deduction.

Even among those who do not take advantage of the charitable giving deduction, the deduction has tremendous support.  35% favor eliminating the deduction while 62% oppose elimination even though they themselves have not claimed it.

You can find a complete summary of the survey results at the Gallup website: http://tinyurl.com/3gr4k93.

Taxes Part 4: Why Have a Charitable Giving Tax Deduction?

Total charitable giving in the U.S. in 2009 was $303.75 billion (2.1% of Gross Domestic Product), according to Giving USA 2010. Of that figure, $251.21 billion (83% of the total) came from individuals. Clearly, individuals are the backbone of American philanthropy.

Many in the nonprofit sector believe, backed by some research studies, that charitable giving remains strong in the US in part because of the incentives offered by the Federal Government. This is the primary reason why many in the sector support the charitable gift tax deduction. It also is why many are concerned that the government might adopt one of the proposals for either eliminating, reducing, or replacing the charitable gift tax deduction.

The consensus that has emerged among a group of large nonprofit organizations is that the Federal Government should preserve giving incentives. Last year, an alliance of 23 nonprofit organizations and professional associations representing tens of thousands of charities sent a letter to President Obama urging him to reject any change to the charitable gift deduction.

The primary reason the consortium backs the charitable giving tax deduction is because the members believe it works to stimulate individual philanthropy. Conversely, the members wrote, “Limiting the value of the charitable deduction does the exact opposite and would fundamentally alter the tradition of charitable giving that has made America one the most generous nations in the world.” For a complete copy of the letter to President Obama and a list of signatories, click here.

Another reason to have a charitable gift deduction is cultural. It is important to have the Federal Government state that charitable giving is such an important duty of citizenship that the government encourages it through the giving incentive. Removing the deduction would send the exact opposite message.

In Canada and the UK, when parliament has contemplated actions impacting the charitable sector, government has engaged the sector in dialogue and both sides have worked closely together to achieve results in society’s best interest. This has been less the case in the US where the relationship has often been adversarial, according to some participants in the process. If the nonprofit sector and the Federal Government can work in concert to arrive at solutions to our challenges, I’m confident that we’ll end up in a reasonably good place. On the other hand, things could get ugly for the sector and society as a whole.

That’s what Michael Rosen says… What do you say?

Taxes Part 3: Proposal to Replace the Charitable Gift Deduction with a Tax Credit

There are a number of proposals for modifying or eliminating the charitable gift deduction that are currently being considered on Capitol Hill. One option comes from the Bipartisan Policy Center’s Task Force. The proposal calls for replacing the charitable gift deduction with a tax credit plan modeled after the United Kingdom’s Gift Aid system.

Instead of a donor receiving a tax deduction for making a charitable donation, he or she would receive a tax credit. Discussions have included a credit up to 15% of the gift. However, instead of the donor receiving a direct benefit, it would be the qualifying charity that receives the benefit. Here’s how it would work: A donor makes a contribution of $100. Upon submitting the necessary paperwork, the Federal Government would send the charity a check for $15. If a donor wants the charity to only receive $100 or wants to lower the “cost” of making such a contribution, he or she could contribute $87 to the charity knowing the government would contribute an additional $13.05.

Unfortunately, such a system would require the Federal Government to build yet another bureaucracy to handle the processing. The cost to the government of additional staffing, equipment, and payment processing will not be insignificant. There would also be a cost burden placed on the nonprofit sector. Organizations would need to spend money educating donors and then monitoring and following up to make sure that donors file the proper paperwork and that the government processes that paperwork without error. This is all an unnecessary set of costs.

The other problem with such a system is that it would require a greater degree of action by donors. First, donors would need to calculate their giving combined with the government giving to figure out how much they’re really donating instead of simply writing a check for $100; under the tax credit system, the donor would have to determine whether they want to donate $100 themselves or just $87, for example. In addition, the donor would have to file some sort of paperwork, along with documentation, to prove to the government that a tax-credit grant should be made to the charity. Many donors are likely to skip this step or do it incorrectly.

Even a Task Force member suggested in The Chronicle of Philanthropy that there is risk. Leonard Burman, a professor at Syracuse University, admits that the possible impact is unclear and could reduce major donor giving, particularly for education and the arts. Yet, he still endorses this proposal which he says has been modeled after Gift Aid in the U.K.

So, what do the Brits have to say on the subject of this proposal? Roberta d’Eustachio, the Chief of Staff to the British Government’s Ambassador for Philanthropy said, “This is the worst idea I ever heard. While charities and nonprofits get money from the government, not everybody that could ‘take up’ the Gift Aid option, does. Why? Because they have to tick a box, they have to do something extra in the bureaucracy and people just don’t do it. … This is a disaster waiting to happen.”

The tax credit plan would be more costly than what we have now, more cumbersome, less donor friendly, and likely to result in less giving. The one thing this plan would effectively do is make folks, particularly charities, more beholden to the Federal Government. D’Eustachio says, “The charities can also begin to lobby for ‘more’ money as they have done here in Britain…. It’s $15 of the $100 today, tomorrow they will want more, and pretty soon the charities are having more of a relationship with government than they are with the donor.”

So, in its infinite wisdom, the Task Force is advancing a proposal modeled after the system in the U.K. that the British do not even endorse! That’s What Michael Rosen Says… What do you say?

Taxes Part 2: Proposals to Eliminate or Reduce the Charitable Gift Deduction

Various proposals are swirling around Capitol Hill to dramatically alter the tax code. A number of these proposals include a complete elimination or significant reduction of the charitable gift deduction. While no formal legislation has been introduced so far, Capitol Hill watchers fully anticipate such legislation sometime this year. Therefore, the nonprofit sector needs to get informed now and develop a strategy for advocating for the position it adopts.

There are two particular proposals that have received a fair amount of media coverage:

1. Elimination of the charitable gift deduction along with virtually all other tax deductions.
2. Effective reduction of the charitable gift deduction by allowing deductions for philanthropy in excess of 2% of gross adjusted income. The deduction would be available to all tax filers and, depending on the proposal, might be capped.

Would either of these proposals negatively impact philanthropy?

Some people assert there would not be a negative impact. These people cite research that reveals that most donors are not particularly motivated by tax avoidance. They also point out that philanthropy was alive and well in the U.S. long before there were charitable giving incentives or, for that matter, an income tax. These people also observe that, since records have been kept, charitable giving has always been about 2% of Gross Domestic Product (1.7% – 2.3%) regardless of the tax policies adopted by Congress.

By contrast, a Bank of America study conducted by the Center on Philanthropy at Indiana University found that 48.3% of wealthy Americans would reduce charitable giving if the gift deduction were eliminated. Of the wealthy American surveyed, 19% said they would dramatically reduce giving. For the survey, “wealthy Americans” were defined as those with an annual income of at least $200,000 and/or $1 million in non-residential assets.

While there are contradictory views on the subject and even research reports that appear contradictory, an anticipated university-drafted white paper is expected to find that philanthropy would be negatively impacted by elimination of or a significant reduction in the charitable gift deduction.

If people experience an increased tax burden, they will have less disposable income with which to make a current cash contribution. Elimination or reduction of various tax deductions would contribute to an increased tax burden for people. Therefore, individual philanthropy would be negatively impacted.

Some have suggested that such damage might occur but would only be short lived as the nonprofit sector would respond with enhanced fundraising efforts. But, such thinking is purely speculative. Between 2007 and 2009, individual giving (adjusted for inflation) has dropped 5.7%. Nonprofit organizations are already suffering and already scrambling for resources. The people who depend on the services provided by the nonprofit sector are already suffering. Do we really want to hurt more people, more severely just to light a possible fire under the feet of development professionals?

Elimination or reduction of the charitable giving tax deduction will negatively impact individual giving. This negative impact will be on top of the negative impact the sector will feel when the individual tax burden is increased. Nonprofit organizations, which provide vital services to our society, should not have to take the double hit.

That’s what Michael Rosen Says… What do you say?

Attack on the Charitable Gift Deduction, 5 Part Series

Last week, National Public Radio interviewed me for a report about the various proposals floating around Washington, DC concerning the charitable gift tax deduction. While no specific legislation to reform the tax system has been presented in Congress, Capitol Hill watchers expect major overhaul legislation to be introduced sometime this year. Normally, I’ll only blog once a week. However, this week I want to address the charitable gift deduction issue, and the subject is just too big for one post. So, I’ll be blogging throughout the week on the topic. I’ll address the issue in the following parts:

• Taxes Part 1: What is the Federal Government up to?
• Taxes Part 2: Proposals to eliminate or reduce the charitable gift deduction
• Taxes Part 3: Proposal to replace the charitable gift deduction with a tax credit
• Taxes Part 4: Why have a charitable gift tax deduction?
• Taxes Part 5: What should the nonprofit sector do?

Rosen interviewed by National Public Radio.

 

Taxes Part 1: What is the Federal Government up to?

The Obama Administration and members of Congress have been talking for months about the need to reform our tax system. President Obama appointed Erskine Bowles and Alan Simpson as co-chairs of the bipartisan National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform. The Bipartisan Policy Center’s Debt Reduction Task Force, co-chaired by Pete Domenici and Alice Rivlin, is a nonprofit organization that has also put forth its own recommendations. Both groups are recommending drastic changes to or elimination of virtually every tax deduction including the one for charitable giving. So, what are they up to?

The U.S. Federal Government has long been guilty of runaway spending. As of Feb. 2011, the national debt is over $14 trillion! Finally, the Federal government seems to understand that the country cannot keep piling on more debt. There are only two ways to address the debt situation: 1) Cut spending, and 2) Raise more tax revenue. The reality is that solving the debt problem will probably require both spending cuts and tax increases. To date, Congress seems to be avoiding major budget slashing and, at best, is simply nibbling at expenses. So, it’s not a surprise Congress and the Administration are looking at a major tax hike. However, they’ll never come out and admit that because it would be too politically costly to do so.

At least one of the tax overhaul proposals would drastically reduce tax rates. Rates would be reduced to 8% to 23% versus today’s range of 10% to 35%. That sounds great, doesn’t it? However, while it sounds like a proposal to lower taxes, it would really result in most people paying more taxes because of the corresponding proposal to eliminate or reduce tax deductions.

The tax overhaul proposals are an example of the Federal Government at its most insidious and cynical. Both Democrats and Republicans would like to raise tax revenue. I suspect they think it’s easier to raise taxes than cut spending. To get Democrats on board, elimination or reduction of tax deductions has been proposed. That would allow Democrats to tell their base of support that they have brought “fairness” to the tax code by reducing or eliminating deductions for the so-called “rich.” To get Republicans on board, the proposed overhaul involves a major reduction in tax rates. That would allow Republicans to tell their base that they have lowered tax rates. Both sides will do everything possible to avoid telling voters that they are really increasing their tax burden. Unfortunately, this is likely to be our future.

If taxes go up significantly, people will have less net income. Research shows that when people have less net income, they give less. So, regardless of which charitable deduction plan is adopted, if any, an increased tax burden will negatively impact philanthropy. Furthermore, a hefty tax increase would likely have a negative impact on Gross Domestic Product. So, even if philanthropy remains at about 2% of GDP, charitable giving will suffer as GDP growth remains sluggish or slides into negative territory.

Congress and the Administration are not likely to single out the nonprofit sector. Instead, the sector is likely to experience some collateral damage as Democrats and Republicans team-up to find crafty ways to increase taxes. That’s what Michael Rosen Says… What do you say?