For one, only charitable non-profit organizations that actually function and work as charities ought to qualify for larger deductions. In concrete terms, only those who donate to non-profits that allocate fifteen percent or less of the funds they receive toward anything other than operating cost directly related to charitable services and work (i.e. employee compensation, advertizing) qualify for a deduction.

We can split this deduction into a smaller size for donations to non-profits those who keep 15-10% of funds beyond basic operating-costs, and a larger deduction for charities that take in less than 10% of funds beyond basic operating costs.

Another deduction, smaller than the charitable deduction(s), ought to be available for donators to what we can term non-charitable non-profits–organizations that qualify as non-profits but not charities, non-profits that keep more than 15% of funds they take in beyond basic operating costs. Many higher-education institutions are more accurately termed “non-charitable non-profits.” Those who donate to such organizations would receive a deduction, more similar to a tax-credit, worth less than the charitable deduction in both its smaller and larger variants.

We ought to place a limit on the definition of “non-charitable non-profit” as well. Organizations that retain sixty-percent of the funds they take in above basic operating costs qualify as for-profits–organizations that retain below this benchmark and above fifteen person of funds taken in beyond basic overhead costs qualify as ‘non-charitable non-profits.

The exact value of the deductions for donations to both “charitable non-profits” and “non-charitable non-profits” is another matter, one beyond the scope of this comment and my competency. Although the term “non-charitable non-profits” might off-put some, the intent is not to vilify anyone. Rather, such organizations–according to their missions and operating models, are more accurately institutions that cover expenses via alternate mechanisms to profit-earning: fund-raising,etc.

Also, while deductions for charitable giving provide a helpful nudge and provocation to donate, charitable giving ceases to exist as charity once giving is calculated to self-gain. Thus, a limit ought to be placed on the number of deductions one can receive for charitable giving. One can of course donate to as many charities as he likes, yet not all of those donations–beyond giving to a certain number of charities–will result in a deduction.

The threshold number of charitable giving, beyond which one will cease to qualify for deductions, is another matter beyond the scope of this comment.

Maybe this idea is entirely wrong-minded yet, even if one disagrees with this modest proposal, one cannot really deny that too many organizations–ones that take in and retain funds well above basic operating expenses–wrongly qualify as charities. Neither these organizations ought to receive a tax-exemption for essentially, in actuality, operating as for-profit businesses nor ought their patrons receive a deduction for funding their rackets.

The income tax taxes all work-for-pay and exempts all volunteer activity. It’s the most just system of taxation we’ve come up with. The “fairer” system would tax “leisure” also but that would be extremely regressive.