[go: up one dir, main page]
IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ntj/journl/v65y2012i1p91-116.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Subsidizing Charitable Contributions With a Match Instead of a Deduction: What Happens to Donations and Compliance?

Author

Listed:
  • Blumenthal, Marsha
  • Kalambokidis, Laura
  • Turk, Alex
Abstract
The current U.S. income tax system subsidizes contributions to charities by allowing individual taxpayers to itemize and deduct contributions from taxable income. In effect, taxpayers can receive a rebate from the government based on the contributions they make to charitable organizations. Under one alternative system, the government matches the contributions of individual taxpayers at some rate between 0 percent and 100 percent. This paper explores the tax policy and administrative implications of matching rather than rebating contributions in a tax system with voluntary reporting. We conduct a novel experiment to examine both charitable giving and compliance behavior under the two regimes.

Suggested Citation

  • Blumenthal, Marsha & Kalambokidis, Laura & Turk, Alex, 2012. "Subsidizing Charitable Contributions With a Match Instead of a Deduction: What Happens to Donations and Compliance?," National Tax Journal, National Tax Association;National Tax Journal, vol. 65(1), pages 91-116, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:ntj:journl:v:65:y:2012:i:1:p:91-116
    DOI: 10.17310/ntj.2012.1.04
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.17310/ntj.2012.1.04
    Download Restriction: Access is restricted to subscribers and members of the National Tax Association.
    File URL: https://doi.org/10.17310/ntj.2012.1.04
    Download Restriction: Access is restricted to subscribers and members of the National Tax Association.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.17310/ntj.2012.1.04?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. James Alm & Kim M. Bloomquist & Michael McKee, 2015. "On The External Validity Of Laboratory Tax Compliance Experiments," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 53(2), pages 1170-1186, April.
    2. Catherine C. Eckel & Philip J. Grossman, 2006. "Subsidizing Charitable Giving with Rebates or Matching: Further Laboratory Evidence," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 72(4), pages 794-807, April.
    3. Jon Bakija & Bradley Heim, 2008. "How Does Charitable Giving Respond to Incentives and Income? Dynamic Panel Estimates Accounting for Predictable Changes in Taxation," NBER Working Papers 14237, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    4. Pablo Guillen & Robert F.Veszteg, 2006. "Subject Pool Bias in Economics Experiments," ThE Papers 06/03, Department of Economic Theory and Economic History of the University of Granada..
    5. Eckel, Catherine C. & Grossman, Philip J., 2003. "Rebate versus matching: does how we subsidize charitable contributions matter?," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 87(3-4), pages 681-701, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Kimberley Scharf & Sarah Smith, 2015. "The price elasticity of charitable giving: does the form of tax relief matter?," International Tax and Public Finance, Springer;International Institute of Public Finance, vol. 22(2), pages 330-352, April.
    2. Levin, Tova & Levitt, Steven D. & List, John A., 2023. "A Glimpse into the world of high capacity givers: Experimental evidence from a university capital campaign," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 212(C), pages 644-658.
    3. Yamamura, Eiji & Tsutsui, Yoshiro & Ohtake, Fumio, 2018. "Altruistic and selfish motivations of charitable giving: The case of the hometown tax donation system (Furusato nozei) in Japan," MPRA Paper 86181, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    4. Gandullia, Luca & Lezzi, Emanuela, 2018. "The price elasticity of charitable giving: New experimental evidence," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 173(C), pages 88-91.
    5. Shusaku Sasaki & Hirofumi Kurokawa & Fumio Ohtake, 2022. "An experimental comparison of rebate and matching in charitable giving: The case of Japan," The Japanese Economic Review, Springer, vol. 73(1), pages 147-177, January.
    6. Roman M. Sheremeta & Neslihan Uler, 2021. "The impact of taxes and wasteful government spending on giving," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 24(2), pages 355-386, June.
    7. YoungRok Kim, 2023. "Effects of tax benefits on the price elasticity of charitable contributions in South Korea," Pacific Economic Review, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 28(2), pages 206-217, May.
    8. Eiji Yamamura & Yoshiro Tsutsui & Fumio Ohtake, 2017. "Altruistic and selfish motivations of charitable giving:Case of the hometown tax donation system in Japan," ISER Discussion Paper 1003, Institute of Social and Economic Research, Osaka University.
    9. Eiji Yamamura & Yoshiro Tsutsui & Fumio Ohtake, 2023. "An analysis of altruistic and selfish motivations underlying hometown tax donations in Japan," The Japanese Economic Review, Springer, vol. 74(1), pages 29-55, January.
    10. Fielding, David & Knowles, Stephen & Peeters, Ronald, 2023. "Timing of rebates and generosity," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 107(C).
    11. Indranil Goswami & Oleg Urminsky, 2018. "No Substitute for the Real Thing: The Importance of In-Context Field Experiments In Fundraising," Natural Field Experiments 00660, The Field Experiments Website.
    12. Daniel M. Hungerman & Mark Ottoni-Wilhelm, 2021. "Impure Impact Giving: Theory and Evidence," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 129(5), pages 1553-1614.

    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. Yamamura, Eiji & Tsutsui, Yoshiro & Ohtake, Fumio, 2018. "Altruistic and selfish motivations of charitable giving: The case of the hometown tax donation system (Furusato nozei) in Japan," MPRA Paper 86181, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    2. Catherine Eckel, 2005. "Subsidizing Charitable Contributions: A Field Test Comparing Matching and Rebate Subsidies," Working Papers 2098, The Field Experiments Website.
    3. Peng, Hui-Chun, 2020. "Effect of cognitive ability on matching and rebate subsidies," Research in Economics, Elsevier, vol. 74(1), pages 19-25.
    4. Boschini, Anne & Muren, Astri & Persson, Mats, 2012. "Constructing gender differences in the economics lab," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 84(3), pages 741-752.
    5. Gabrielle Fack & Camille Landais, 2010. "Are Tax Incentives for Charitable Giving Efficient? Evidence from France," American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, American Economic Association, vol. 2(2), pages 117-141, May.
    6. James Alm & Daniel Teles, 2018. "State and federal tax policy toward nonprofit organizations," Chapters, in: Bruce A. Seaman & Dennis R. Young (ed.), Handbook of Research on Nonprofit Economics and Management, chapter 19, pages 370-385, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    7. Catherine Eckel & Philip Grossman, 2008. "Subsidizing charitable contributions: a natural field experiment comparing matching and rebate subsidies," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 11(3), pages 234-252, September.
    8. Roman M. Sheremeta & Neslihan Uler, 2021. "The impact of taxes and wasteful government spending on giving," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 24(2), pages 355-386, June.
    9. Douglas D. Davis, 2006. "Rebate subsidies, matching subsidies and isolation effects," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 1, pages 13-22, July.
    10. Alexander D. Cornish & Stephanie A. Heger, 2022. "Vice and Virtue Behaviors: Disentangling Substitution and Direct Effects of the Price of Giving," CESifo Working Paper Series 9558, CESifo.
    11. Kimberley Scharf & Sarah Smith, 2015. "The price elasticity of charitable giving: does the form of tax relief matter?," International Tax and Public Finance, Springer;International Institute of Public Finance, vol. 22(2), pages 330-352, April.
    12. Diederich, Johannes & Goeschl, Timo, 2017. "To mitigate or not to mitigate: The price elasticity of pro-environmental behavior," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 84(C), pages 209-222.
    13. Rapheal Andrew Luccasen III, 2012. "Individual Differences In Contributions And Crowding-Out Of A Public Good," Scottish Journal of Political Economy, Scottish Economic Society, vol. 59(4), pages 419-441, September.
    14. Scharf, Kim & Smith, Sarah, 2010. "Rational Inattention to Subsidies for Charitable Contributions," CAGE Online Working Paper Series 02, Competitive Advantage in the Global Economy (CAGE).
    15. Eiji Yamamura & Yoshiro Tsutsui & Fumio Ohtake, 2017. "Altruistic and selfish motivations of charitable giving:Case of the hometown tax donation system in Japan," ISER Discussion Paper 1003, Institute of Social and Economic Research, Osaka University.
    16. Saboury, Piruz & Krasteva, Silvana & Palma, Marco A., 2022. "The effect of seed money and matching gifts in fundraising: A lab experiment," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 194(C), pages 425-453.
    17. Krasteva, Silvana & Saboury, Piruz, 2021. "Informative fundraising: The signaling value of seed money and matching gifts," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 203(C).
    18. Catherine C. Eckel & Philip J. Grossman, 2006. "Subsidizing Charitable Contributions in the Field: Evidence from a Non-Secular Charity," Monash Economics Working Papers archive-44, Monash University, Department of Economics.
    19. Philip J. Grossman & Mana Komai, 2012. "The Economic Impact of Anti-Social Preferences in a Multi-Period Game with Attacks and Insurance," Monash Economics Working Papers 21-12, Monash University, Department of Economics.
    20. Chavanne, David & McCabe, Kevin & Paganelli, Maria Pia, 2011. "Whose money is it anyway? Ingroups and distributive behavior," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 77(1), pages 31-39, January.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:ntj:journl:v:65:y:2012:i:1:p:91-116. 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: The University of Chicago Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.ntanet.org/ .

    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.