IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bpj/nonpfo/v11y2020i4p18n7.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Impact of Five Different Tax Policy Changes on Household Giving in the United States

Author

Listed:
  • Rooney Patrick
  • Zarins Sasha
  • Bergdoll Jon
  • Osili Una

    (Lilly Family School of Philanthropy, Indiana University Purdue University at Indianapolis, 301 University Blvd, Suite 3000, 46202-5143Indianapolis, IN, USA)

Abstract

About $450 billion were donated to U.S. nonprofits in 2019 according to the most recently available data (Giving USA Foundation 2020). However, despite the increases in charitable dollars, the share of households that donate has been declining: in 2000, 67 percent of American households donated to nonprofits, but in 2016, only 53 percent of American households donated (Indiana University Lilly Family School of Philanthropy 2019). This trend in decreasing share of U.S. households that donate to charitable causes pre-dates the passage of the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA), but could be accelerated by the recent policy changes. TCJA significantly changed federal tax policy and these changes are expected to affect charitable giving (Brill and Choe 2018; Ricco 2018; Rooney et al. 2017). Nonprofit leaders, as well as policymakers, have been exploring additional policy proposals to offset the potential negative impact on charitable giving. This paper investigates the estimated effects of potential policy proposals on charitable giving, donor incidence rates, and Treasury revenue. This study used the Penn Wharton Budget Model (Penn 2019a, 2019b) to run microsimulations of the effects of five tax policy proposals on charitable giving dollars, the number of households that donate, and the forgone Treasury revenue. The five proposals included: a non-itemizer charitable deduction; a non-itemizer charitable deduction with a cap; a non-itemizer charitable deduction with a floor; an enhanced non-itemizer charitable deduction, which provides a higher value deduction for low- and middle-income households; and a non-itemizer non-refundable 25 percent charitable giving tax credit. Of the five policy options analyzed, providing a non-refundable 25% charitable giving tax credit to non-itemizers has the largest positive impact, increasing both the amount of charitable giving dollars ($37 billion in 2018 dollars) and the number of donor households (10.6 million) of the five policy options analyzed. However, it is also the most “expensive” proposal (measured in terms of forgone Treasury revenue) for United States (U.S.) Treasury revenue (−$33.0 billion). Four of the five policy proposals bring in more charitable dollars than are lost in Treasury revenue. Four of the five policy proposals bring in more charitable dollars than were projected to have been lost as a result of TCJA. All five proposals bring in more donor households that were expected to be lost as a result of TCJA. This paper is based on a published report written and researched by [school] in partnership with the Wharton School of Business at the University of Pennsylvania and commissioned by Independent Sector. The report, “Charitable Giving and Tax Incentives Estimating changes in charitable dollars and number of donors resulting from five policy proposals,” can be found at this link: http://hdl.handle.net/1805/19515.

Suggested Citation

  • Rooney Patrick & Zarins Sasha & Bergdoll Jon & Osili Una, 2020. "The Impact of Five Different Tax Policy Changes on Household Giving in the United States," Nonprofit Policy Forum, De Gruyter, vol. 11(4), pages 1-18, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:bpj:nonpfo:v:11:y:2020:i:4:p:18:n:7
    DOI: 10.1515/npf-2020-0040
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1515/npf-2020-0040
    Download Restriction: For access to full text, subscription to the journal or payment for the individual article is required.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1515/npf-2020-0040?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Martin Feldstein, 2015. "Raising Revenue by Limiting Tax Expenditures," Tax Policy and the Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 29(1), pages 1-11.
    2. Almunia, Miguel & Guceri, Irem & Lockwood, Ben & Scharf, Kimberley, 2020. "More giving or more givers? The effects of tax incentives on charitable donations in the UK," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 183(C).
    3. Thomas Piketty & Emmanuel Saez, 2007. "How Progressive is the U.S. Federal Tax System? A Historical and International Perspective," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 21(1), pages 3-24, Winter.
    4. Alex Brill & Derrick Choe, 2018. "Charitable giving and the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act," AEI Economic Perspectives, American Enterprise Institute, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Jonathan Meer & Benjamin A. Priday, 2020. "Tax Prices and Charitable Giving: Projected Changes in Donations under the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act," Tax Policy and the Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 34(1), pages 113-138.
    2. Jonathan Meer & Benjamin A. Priday, 2019. "Tax Prices and Charitable Giving: Projected Changes in Donations Under the 2017 TCJA," NBER Working Papers 26452, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    3. Graziella Bertocchi, 2011. "The Vanishing Bequest Tax: The Comparative Evolution Of Bequest Taxation In Historical Perspective," Economics and Politics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 23(1), pages 107-131, March.
    4. Barış Kaymak & Immo Schott, 2023. "Corporate Tax Cuts and the Decline in the Manufacturing Labor Share," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 91(6), pages 2371-2408, November.
    5. Peter G. Backus & Nicky L. Grant, 2019. "How sensitive is the average taxpayer to changes in the tax-price of giving?," International Tax and Public Finance, Springer;International Institute of Public Finance, vol. 26(2), pages 317-356, April.
    6. Till Treeck, 2014. "Did Inequality Cause The U.S. Financial Crisis?," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 28(3), pages 421-448, July.
    7. Per Krusell & Anthony Smith & Joachim Hubmer, 2015. "The historical evolution of the wealth distribution: A quantitative-theoretic investigation," 2015 Meeting Papers 1406, Society for Economic Dynamics.
    8. repec:esx:essedp:712 is not listed on IDEAS
    9. Komlos John, 2019. "Reaganomics: A Watershed Moment on the Road to Trumpism," The Economists' Voice, De Gruyter, vol. 16(1), pages 1-21, December.
    10. Dolls, Mathias & Fuest, Clemens & Peichl, Andreas, 2012. "Automatic stabilizers and economic crisis: US vs. Europe," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 96(3), pages 279-294.
    11. Anthony B. Atkinson & Thomas Piketty & Emmanuel Saez, 2011. "Top Incomes in the Long Run of History," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 49(1), pages 3-71, March.
    12. Steven Pressman, 2014. "A Tax Reform That Falls Flat," Challenge, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 57(4), pages 82-102.
    13. Frederic L Pryor, 2015. "Recent Fracturing in the US Economy and Society," Eastern Economic Journal, Palgrave Macmillan;Eastern Economic Association, vol. 41(2), pages 230-250, March.
    14. Markus Poschke & Baris Kaymak & Ozan Bakis, 2012. "On the Optimality of Progressive Income Redistribution," 2012 Meeting Papers 837, Society for Economic Dynamics.
    15. Giertz, Seth H., 2007. "The Elasticity of Taxable Income Over the 1980s and 1990s," National Tax Journal, National Tax Association;National Tax Journal, vol. 60(4), pages 743-768, December.
    16. Morten Nyborg Støstad & Frank Cowell, 2021. "Inequality as an Externality: Consequences for Tax Design," PSE Working Papers halshs-03495989, HAL.
    17. Bruce D. Meyer & Derek Wu & Grace Finley & Patrick Langetieg & Carla Medalia & Mark Payne & Alan Plumley, 2020. "The Accuracy of Tax Imputations: Estimating Tax Liabilities and Credits Using Linked Survey and Administrative Data," NBER Chapters, in: Measuring Distribution and Mobility of Income and Wealth, pages 459-498, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    18. Perroni, Carlo & Scharf, Kimberley & Talavera, Oleksandr & Vi, Linh, 2022. "Does online salience predict charitable giving? Evidence from SMS text donations," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 197(C), pages 134-149.
    19. Roach, Brian, 2010. "Progressive and Regressive Taxation in the United States: Who’s Really Paying (and Not Paying) their Fair Share?," Working Papers 179091, Tufts University, Global Development and Environment Institute.
    20. Christian vom Lehn & Eric Fisher & Aspen Gorry, 2018. "Male Labor Supply and Generational Fiscal Policy," Review of Economic Dynamics, Elsevier for the Society for Economic Dynamics, vol. 28, pages 121-149, April.
    21. Rieth, Malte & Checherita-Westphal, Cristina & Attinasi, Maria-Grazia, 2016. "Personal income tax progressivity and output volatility: Evidence from OECD countries," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 49(3), pages 968-996.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bpj:nonpfo:v:11:y:2020:i:4:p:18:n:7. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Peter Golla (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.degruyter.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.