Protesters Say Dexter Reed Was Shot, Assassinated, and Overly-Killed
Brian Stelter Concerned Pro-Trump Propaganda Media Will Publicize Jurors
Sunny Hostin of 'The View' Fears a Trump Supporter Will 'Sneak' Onto the...
Woman Complains That Men Do Nothing When 'Abusive Drug-Addled Bum' Terrorizes Train Car
Pallywood: Palestinian Women Devastated at the Loss of a Loved One in Gaza
BREAKING: Washington Post Writer Doesn't Read The Washington Post
A Constitutional Crisis of the Democrats' Making
Elon Musk Calls NPR CEO Katherine Maher 'One of the Worst Human Beings...
Check Out These Highlights of Columbia President Beclowning Herself During Congressional H...
President Joe Biden Warns the Israelis Not to Attack Israel
SPOILED: NYC Illegal Immigrant Complains Free Food, Housing Not Good Enough and Is...
Explaining Judge Stoner’s Verdict in the Dacia Lacey Baby ‘Smothering’ Case (A Deep...
President Biden Says Voters Have to Choose Freedom Over Democracy
CBP Account Warns of *Consequences for Entering US Illegally (*Yeah, About That...)
Biden's Baffling Brain-Rot, Mayorkas' Worst Day Yet

Ari Fleischer may give less if charitable deduction is limited; Libs freak out

We don’t see anything controversial about Fleischer’s tweet. In fact, we suspect that virtually every economist on the planet would agree with the crux of his argument. If the tax deduction for charitable donations increases, charitable giving goes up (all other things equal). If the deduction is reduced, charitable deductions go down.

Advertisement

Moreover, we see nothing wrong with taking into account tax considerations when deciding how much to give to charity.

If Fleischer is wrong — that is, if people who give money to charity are never influenced by tax deductions — then why have a charitable deduction in the first place?

Why do groups like the United Way, the American Red Cross, and Lutheran Services in America oppose any change to the deduction if limiting it will have no effect on charitable giving?

Unfortunately, many liberals aren’t interested in economics (or logic). Rather than acknowledge the truth in what Fleischer said, they responded with their usual vitriol:

https://twitter.com/elongreen/status/286152097869737985

https://twitter.com/kendall/status/286152847458988032

https://twitter.com/jimmywhiz/status/286158865689612288

https://twitter.com/carleab/status/286170168613298176

Advertisement

https://twitter.com/JeremyLittau/status/286175781930008576

https://twitter.com/soundproofblog/status/286183289440587777

https://twitter.com/JalbyMD/status/286182954017882112

https://twitter.com/mamasnark/status/286181932335771648

Advertisement

https://twitter.com/Jeremy_Teel/status/286181002894770176

https://twitter.com/LibertyBelleJ/status/286180955817914369

https://twitter.com/asl3676/status/286180668852015104

https://twitter.com/jebyler/status/286165014245691393

Advertisement

https://twitter.com/bcabsalom/status/286157519049596930

https://twitter.com/tweetlesstim/status/286154339616174080

Fleischer tried to explain himself. If he can’t deduct his charitable contributions, he’ll have to pay higher taxes and will therefore have less money to give away:

Advertisement

But that didn’t help. In fact, it only made matters worse.

https://twitter.com/BuzzFeedAndrew/status/286186693294452736

https://twitter.com/hellohopey/status/286190682048172032

Fleischer is guilty of only one mistake: He tried to explain economics to liberals. He’ll know better next time.

Join the conversation as a VIP Member

Recommended

Trending on Twitchy Videos

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement