This discussion is important and healthy and all views should be heard. I offer the following arguments in favor of a "flatter tax" that does not allow a deduction for charitable contributions. The views stated are my own and do not represent any official position of the State Tax Commission or any governmental entity.

Taxpayers have been allowed to deduct charitable contributions in computing their federal income tax since 1917, four years after the tax was first enacted. The deduction was intended to subsidize the activities of private organizations that provide viable alternatives to direct government programs.

At that time, Congress was concerned that a recent increase in tax rates would discourage private charity.

The deduction allows a taxpayer to choose his or her preferred charity and to share the costs of the contribution with other taxpayers. For example, a taxpayer in the 28 percent tax bracket can make a $100 contribution to a charity and lessen his or her tax obligation by $28.

Cost sharing occurs because the $28 must be made up by other taxpayers (who may or may not support the charitable cause itself). Of course, a lower-income taxpayer, who does not itemize deductions, receives no such benefit.

Supporters of the deduction also argue that a tax subsidy through the Internal Revenue Code is a more efficient way to accomplish social goals. Thus, a food bank, supported by tax-deductible contributions, may be more efficient at feeding the poor than a government welfare program.

These principles - that the deduction encourages private giving, that other taxpayers should subsidize an individual donor's charitable goals and that the costs of government are actually lowered by the charitable exemption - are all questionable as they apply to Utah's income tax.

Substantial research now indicates that the tax exemption is not a significant incentive to charitable giving. Contributors are primarily motivated by a strong belief in the goals of the organization, by religious faith or by gratitude for the services the organization has provided to them or their loved ones.

Even if the deduction is an incentive at the federal level, any additional incentive at the state level is unlikely to be significant.

A couple with federal taxable income of $70,000 is in the 25 percent tax bracket. A charitable contribution of $5,000 would reduce their federal tax liability from about $10,980 to about $9,730, a reduction of $1,250. Their state income tax would be reduced by about $306 under current law.

Under the flat tax proposal to reduce the state rate to 4 percent, the taxpayer would only give up $200 in savings. Taxpayers in the 25 percent to 35 percent tax brackets are unlikely to change their charitable giving based on a 4 percent state tax rate.

The federal tax savings will still be available and will dwarf any state effect. Because the deduction is still available on the federal return, Utah taxpayers are not likely to reduce charitable giving just because a state deduction is no longer available.

Further, one Utah taxpayer should not subsidize another taxpayer's charitable goals.

Utahns in particular, and Americans generally, support a wide variety of charitable organizations. Churches, parishes, synagogues and mosques all benefit from charitable contributions. So do the Americans United for Separation of Church and State and the Atheist Alliance.

The Constitution prevents the government from distinguishing between such organizations based on their members' beliefs. Literally thousands of non-religious organizations also qualify for tax-deductible charitable contributions.

For example, the Thoroughbred Retirement Foundation, The Aegean Center for the Fine Arts, and the Insight Out Theatre Collective, all qualify. So do the Valley Rowing Foundation, the Woodlands Marlins Summer Swim Team and the United States Open Sandcastle Committee of Imperial Beach, Calif. All of these entities certainly have the right to compete for support from the general public.

In Utah, however, all of our income tax revenues are constitutionally dedicated to education. Is it good public policy to reduce education funding because a particular donor wants to contribute to a sandcastle competition?

Our state Constitution precludes the Legislature from using income tax funds to support such causes, even though such an appropriation would be subject to the checks and balances of the legislative process. It is not good policy to allow an indirect subsidy from education funds, without any legislative oversight or public input.

We also need to ask another question. If two Utah families have the same income, is it fair to require one to pay more income tax, just because it does not support any particular charity?

A primary justification for the charitable deduction is that some public services can be performed more efficiently by private charities than by government. Many Utahns would share this belief in certain cases.

The Yorkshire Terrier Mid-America Rescue may well be more efficient at caring for abandoned Yorkshire terriers than a county animal control unit. A private food bank may be more efficient than a government welfare program. County and state welfare and animal control costs are lessened because private agencies are willing to provide these services.

This argument may have some merit on the federal level where income tax revenues fund the general budget. It could have some merit if general operating funds of the state were at issue. As noted, however, in Utah, charitable contributions do not reduce the general fund, they reduce education funds.

Thus, when a Utah taxpayer contributes to the Humane Society, the costs of the county animal control unit may go down. The subsidy, however, comes not from county funds. It comes from education. Accordingly, where education funding is concerned, a generally available charitable exemption is not a more efficient way to provide such services.

For all of these reasons, the citizens of Utah should carefully consider whether a charitable income tax deduction makes sense for our state.

---

R. Bruce Johnson is a member of the Utah State Tax Commission.