PDA

View Full Version : Economics Charity is a tax dodge- B.O.


***SPRAYER
03-26-2009, 07:14 AM
Taxing The Samaritan
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Wednesday, March 25, 2009 4:20 PM PT

Fiscal Policy: President Obama defends his plan to cut the tax deduction for charitable contributions. America is the most charitable nation on earth. Now the government sees charity as a tax dodge.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Read More: Budget & Tax Policy


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


We have reached a sad state of affairs when charitable giving has become an issue of class warfare. If people in the upper brackets get more of a break because they earn more, they also pay taxes at a higher rate because they earn more.

In recent years the tax code has been used as carrot and stick to encourage and discourage behavior, not as a means of raising revenues, but as a tool for social engineering. Through subsidies excuse us, "investments" we want to encourage or incentivize certain activities? Why wouldn't we want to incentivize charitable giving in tough economic times?

At his Tuesday press conference, President Obama once again invoked the issue of fairness in defending his plan to cut the tax deduction for charitable giving for the "rich." It isn't fair, he said, that a bus driver making $50,000 a year could deduct a $100 charitable contribution at a 28% rate but that the president could deduct it at a 39% rate.

Of course, Obama gets taxed at that 39% rate. Actually it's lower than that now, but we're using his words and the point is the same. Is that also unfair? He can also afford to give more. To the homeless shelter that $100 is given to, it doesn't matter whether you are contributing out of goodwill or on the advice of your tax preparer.

White House budget chief Peter Orszag earlier wrote on his blog:

"If you're a teacher making $50,000 a year and decide to donate $1,000 to the Red Cross or United Way, you enjoy a tax break of $150. If you're a Warren Buffett or Bill Gates and you make the same deduction, you get a $350 deduction more than twice the break as the teacher."

A Buffett or Gates donation is likely to have a few more zeroes added to it at the end. Those are the people who can give more and should be encouraged to give more. But think about: Is it fair that more money will now be going to the government than to that homeless shelter or to United Way and the Red Cross?

Orszag counters that when the top income-tax deduction for charitable contributions was lowered between 2002 and 2003 from 38.6% to 35%, charitable contributions rose. But the top tax rate was also reduced to 35%, increasing after-tax income. When people are allowed to keep more, they give more.

The White House estimates this change in tax policy will yield $318 billion in revenues over 10 years. How much of that money could and should go to charities rather than to a government whose war on poverty has been one of the greatest boondoggles of all time?

"It's not going to cripple them," Obama said. "They'll still be well-to-do." But it might very well well cripple charitable giving despite his reassurances. The Tax Policy Center, a liberal think tank, estimates the Obama plan will reduce annual giving by 2%, or $9 billion. That's $90 billion over 10 years.

The Center on Philanthropy at Indiana University reports that total itemized contributions from the highest-income households would have dropped almost 5%, or $3.87 billion, in 2006 had this policy been in place.

The lives of needy Americans are being improved by their neighbors through charitable contributions every day. Why the neighbors do it is irrelevant to the good it accomplishes. Charity is best administered at the level closest to those who need it. Local institutions know best how and to whom it should be distributed, and they don't take quite the cut government does.

Keep the charitable tax deductions where they are or even increase them. Let people spread their own wealth around.



http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=322874321231409

jAZ
03-26-2009, 07:27 AM
If these wealthy donors are so truely charitable, an decrease in their tax deduction won't really matter. They surely weren't doing it for the tax write off, now where they?

Sully
03-26-2009, 07:30 AM
If you donate to charity, it should be 100% tax-deductible.

***SPRAYER
03-26-2009, 07:30 AM
If these wealthy donors are so truely charitable, an decrease in their tax deduction won't really matter. They surely weren't doing it for the tax write off, now where they?

Who cares what the motive is, I know the money going to Wash DC is going to be wasted.



Is it fair that more money will now be going to the government than to that homeless shelter or to United Way and the Red Cross?

bkkcoh
03-26-2009, 07:48 AM
Who cares what the motive is, I know the money going to Wash DC is going to be wasted.



Is it fair that more money will now be going to the government than to that homeless shelter or to United Way and the Red Cross?

we all know that the government is much more efficient in distributing money to the people that need it.

If you donate to charity, it should be 100% tax-deductible.

Amen.

jAZ
03-26-2009, 07:50 AM
Is it fair that more money will now be going to the government than to that homeless shelter or to United Way and the Red Cross?
Unless the gov't starts taxing charitable contributions at 101%+ that makes no sense what so ever.

BucEyedPea
03-26-2009, 07:59 AM
Man, I knew BO was a fascist when I heard this. Truly disgusting.
I'll admit I gave a huge chunk one year because I'd rather a preferred or favorite charity get the money instead of Uncle Sam. There's nothing wrong with that since the state gives it to useless things. This is supposed to be a FREE country not a Stalinesque regime with a smile.

Mr. Kotter
03-26-2009, 08:01 AM
If you donate to charity, it should be 100% tax-deductible.

Yup. As long as it's a legitimate non-profit charity.

jAZ
03-26-2009, 08:02 AM
If you donate to charity, it should be 100% tax-deductible.

Why?

Mr. Kotter
03-26-2009, 08:04 AM
Why?

Because private charity should be the back-bone of our "social safety net," not the bureaucracy.

jAZ
03-26-2009, 08:11 AM
Because private charity should be the back-bone of our "social safety net," not the bureaucracy.

What does that have to do with 100% deductible?

whatsmynameagain
03-26-2009, 08:19 AM
its ok that the rich get a bigger tax break on charitable contributions BECAUSE THEY DONATE MORE, but raising taxes on the rich because they make more is unfair. nice to see the right talking out both sides of their mouths.
Posted via Mobile Device

HonestChieffan
03-26-2009, 08:26 AM
Demos dont give to charities at even close to the same level as Republicans do so reducing the deduction has no impact on them.

***SPRAYER
03-26-2009, 08:27 AM
its ok that the rich get a bigger tax break on charitable contributions BECAUSE THEY DONATE MORE, but raising taxes on the rich because they make more is unfair. nice to see the right talking out both sides of their mouths.
Posted via Mobile Device


Actually, I get a standard deduction, so I don't get a "tax break" on anything I give to charity or my church.

I give out of the goodness of my heart.

Having said that, people in the upper tax brackets should have the option of giving their money to the charities of their choice if that money is only going to be confiscated by the government and pissed away anyway.

***SPRAYER
03-26-2009, 08:32 AM
Demos dont give to charities at even close to the same level as Republicans do so reducing the deduction has no impact on them.

True. And not only that, many of them don't pay any taxes neither.

Sully
03-26-2009, 08:34 AM
Why?

The reason I believe in welfare programs is because I believe everyone should have some sort of safety net.
Many feel that the "government" isn't the most efficient manner of those tax-raised funds to reach those in need (a completely separate topic). If they believe that strongly, and want to give money directly to a charity they feel is more efficient or targets a need they feel more strongly about, then we should have that right.

They need to be legit charities, but that goes without saying.
If ym church does charitable good, and I feel they are the best manner for my dollars to help those in need, I think I should be able to make that choice.


What's the downside to that, if I'm not seeing it?

***SPRAYER
03-26-2009, 08:36 AM
What does that have to do with 100% deductible?

This isn't making sense to you, because you are a communist. You believe in class warfare, you believe that people who make alot of money or have alot of money should be punished.

But you are not "just" punishing the rich, you are also punishing the charities who do alot of good work for alot of desperate and in need people.

Why shouldn't a high income person prefer to give their money to a charity that can account for where the money is going versus having it confiscated from a government that won't?

The billions of "stimulus" dollars your beloved hero B.O. just had printed up and doled out....

Who's in charge of disbursing the funds and accounting for how they are spent? Nobody is. There are right now 17 top positions in the Dept of the Treasury that are vacant.

eazyb81
03-26-2009, 08:37 AM
My God, what next? This guy is ****ing disaster.

I really believed that the people who were totally against Obama were being a bit sensationalistic at the time of the election, but it looks like they were exactly right.

***SPRAYER
03-26-2009, 08:38 AM
My God, what next? This guy is ****ing disaster.

He's just getting warmed up.

blaise
03-26-2009, 08:57 AM
If these wealthy donors are so truely charitable, an decrease in their tax deduction won't really matter. They surely weren't doing it for the tax write off, now where they?

What difference do their motives make? Now they have to really feel it to make it count? The dollars spend the same to the people getting them.

Rain Man
03-26-2009, 09:01 AM
Is my accountant a moron? I haven't been able to deduct charitable contributions in my better-earning years because my deductions phase out. I don't know if that's an Alternative Minimum Tax thing or something else, but when I had a really great year in 2006 I couldn't even deduct most of my mortgage interest.

Brock
03-26-2009, 09:01 AM
Why?

That's a stupid question.

alanm
03-26-2009, 09:09 AM
My God, what next? This guy is ****ing disaster.

I really believed that the people who were totally against Obama were being a bit sensationalistic at the time of the election, but it looks like they were exactly right.I was wondering if he can be recalled.
If people knew a year ago what they know now. Hillary would of beat him in a landslide.
Buyers remorse is a Mother F*cker.

***SPRAYER
03-26-2009, 09:12 AM
I was wondering if he can be recalled.
If people knew a year ago what they know now. Hillary would of beat him in a landslide.
Buyers remorse is a Mother F*cker.


Our only hope now is... well I better not say.

Sully
03-26-2009, 09:12 AM
I was wondering if he can be recalled.
If people knew a year ago what they know now. Hillary would of beat him in a landslide.
Buyers remorse is a Mother F*cker.

I think you couldn't be more wrong, here.

jAZ
03-26-2009, 09:15 AM
That's a stupid question.

I don't think it's a remotely stupid question, but maybe the problem is that either I'm confused or everyone else isn't paying attention to what was said.

If you donate to charity, it should be 100% tax-deductible.

If I am in the top tax bracket and I have $1000 that am willing to donate.

That $1000 would be taxed at 39%.

I believe that the money I donate to charity shouldn't be taxed at all.

That meanst 100% tax-free, but that does not mean 100% deductable.

100% deductable means that approximately $2000 that I don't donate to charity are also tax free.

So that's why I ask... why?

Sully
03-26-2009, 09:16 AM
I don't think it's a remotely stupid question, but maybe the problem is that either I'm confused or everyone else isn't paying attention to what was said.

If I am in the top tax bracket and I have $1000 that am willing to donate.

That $1000 would be taxed at 39%.

I believe that the money I donate to charity shouldn't be taxed at all.

That meanst 100% tax-free, but that does not mean 100% deductable.

100% deductable means that approximately $2000 that I don't donate to charity are also tax free.

So that's why I ask... why?


Maybe I'm using the wrong terminology, then.
My bad.

Taco John
03-26-2009, 09:17 AM
I've got a better question... Why does the government need to be involved in this charitable transaction at all?

***SPRAYER
03-26-2009, 09:17 AM
I'm not an accountant but I hear that the general rule is a tax-credit is more desirable than a tax deduction. Maybe an acct can clarify that?


I don't think it's a remotely stupid question, but maybe the problem is that either I'm confused or everyone else isn't paying attention to what was said.



If I am in the top tax bracket and I have $1000 that am willing to donate.

That $1000 would be taxed at 39%.

I believe that the money I donate to charity shouldn't be taxed at all.

That meanst 100% tax-free, but that does not mean 100% deductable.

100% deductable means that approximately $2000 that I don't donate to charity are also tax free.

So that's why I ask... why?

Rain Man
03-26-2009, 09:18 AM
I don't think it's a remotely stupid question, but maybe the problem is that either I'm confused or everyone else isn't paying attention to what was said.



If I am in the top tax bracket and I have $1000 that am willing to donate.

That $1000 would be taxed at 39%.

I believe that the money I donate to charity shouldn't be taxed at all.

That meanst 100% tax-free, but that does not mean 100% deductable.

100% deductable means that approximately $2000 that I don't donate to charity are also tax free.

So that's why I ask... why?


Huh? It just comes off your income and financially acts like you never received the money. You would donate $1,000 to save $390 of taxes. You're still down $610.

jAZ
03-26-2009, 09:18 AM
Maybe I'm using the wrong terminology, then.
My bad.

No worries. Just wanted a clarification.

jAZ
03-26-2009, 09:21 AM
Huh? It just comes off your income and financially acts like you never received the money. You would donate $1,000 to save $390 of taxes. You're still down $610.

Like I said, maybe I'm confused.

Maybe we all are saying the same thing.

jAZ
03-26-2009, 09:23 AM
I read Sully's post to say that if I donate $1000, then my tax burden should be reduced $1000.

It should be reduced $390 (or whatever % given your tax bracket(s)).

Sully
03-26-2009, 09:24 AM
Let me clarify what I meant.


If I give $1000 to charity, that's $1000 less I should pay in taxes, IMO.

Ultra Peanut
03-26-2009, 09:25 AM
My God, what next? This guy is ****ing disaster.

I really believed that the people who were totally against Obama were being a bit sensationalistic at the time of the election, but it looks like they were exactly right.It's nice that you're willing to admit how impressionable you are, I guess.

Amnorix
03-26-2009, 09:28 AM
Obama can do no right. Scream about the economy, scream abuot deficits, scream about cutting costs anywhere, and scream about raising taxes directly or indirectly.

He can't move but to lose in the eyes of some.

Amnorix
03-26-2009, 09:29 AM
Let me clarify what I meant.


If I give $1000 to charity, that's $1000 less I should pay in taxes, IMO.

The current tax code isn't nearly so generous. Hell, no tax code in US history ever did THAT.

Amnorix
03-26-2009, 09:30 AM
Is my accountant a moron? I haven't been able to deduct charitable contributions in my better-earning years because my deductions phase out. I don't know if that's an Alternative Minimum Tax thing or something else, but when I had a really great year in 2006 I couldn't even deduct most of my mortgage interest.

Almost certainly an AMT thing.

alanm
03-26-2009, 09:30 AM
I think you couldn't be more wrong, here. As much as I despise Hilliary. I would of voted for Hillary in a nanosecond if they were the only 2 choices for the November election had anyone known what Chairman Zero's agenda truly was. The mainstream media failed the American people in epic proportions.:shake::spock:

Amnorix
03-26-2009, 09:32 AM
I've got a better question... Why does the government need to be involved in this charitable transaction at all?

It doesn't. But historically charitable contributions have been deductible.

Sully
03-26-2009, 09:33 AM
As much as I despise Hilliary. I would of voted for Hillary in a nanosecond if they were the only 2 choices for the November election had anyone known what Chairman Zero's agenda truly was. The mainstream media failed the American people in epic proportions.:shake::spock:

Weird.
He's following exactly what he said he would do pre-election.

Maybe you weren't listening.

Amnorix
03-26-2009, 09:34 AM
Huh? It just comes off your income and financially acts like you never received the money. You would donate $1,000 to save $390 of taxes. You're still down $610.


This is correct. Everyone who is saying other stuff is confused. I don't even understand Jaz's $1,000 = $2,000 comment.

Charitable contributions are ignored for purposes of income earned. It's not a freaking tax credit. If that were true, nobody would pay a dime of federal income taxes.

blaise
03-26-2009, 09:35 AM
Obama can do no right. Scream about the economy, scream abuot deficits, scream about cutting costs anywhere, and scream about raising taxes directly or indirectly.

He can't move but to lose in the eyes of some.

Just as the opposite is true with others.

Jenson71
03-26-2009, 09:35 AM
As much as I despise Hilliary. I would of voted for Hillary in a nanosecond if they were the only 2 choices for the November election had anyone known what Chairman Zero's agenda truly was. The mainstream media failed the American people in epic proportions.:shake::spock:

LMAO This is incredible. How many times did the Right scream socialism!! during the campaign? Good Lord people. He wasn't socialist then, he isn't socialist now, and the mainstream media has attached itself to morons. Are you sure you aren't just sounding like a bitch?

alanm
03-26-2009, 09:35 AM
Weird.
He's following exactly what he said he would do pre-election.

Maybe you weren't listening.I take it you're happy with his job performance so far?

HonestChieffan
03-26-2009, 09:36 AM
The current tax code isn't nearly so generous. Hell, no tax code in US history ever did THAT.

Thats cause charities dont fix roads, put in sewers or all the other things tax goes to

jAZ
03-26-2009, 09:37 AM
Let me clarify what I meant.


If I give $1000 to charity, that's $1000 less I should pay in taxes, IMO.
Ok, that is perfectly clear and I was reading you correctly.

Your propsal would would be a drastic change from the current approach. It makes no sense to me. Your donation shouldn't be taxed (generally). But any money you didn't donate should be taxed normally.

Sully
03-26-2009, 09:38 AM
I take it you're happy with his job performance so far?

On a scale of 1-10, I'm at about a 6.5-7.
I'm embarrassed by a few of his gaffes. However, he has done just what he said he'd do. So the "buyers remorse" angle is only being played by either those who didn't pay attention, or those whoa re invested in seeing him fail no matter what.

jAZ
03-26-2009, 09:39 AM
... had anyone known what Chairman Zero's agenda truly was...

Ummm... what hidden agenda is he implementing?

Amnorix
03-26-2009, 09:45 AM
Ok, that is perfectly clear and I was reading you correctly.

Your propsal would would be a drastic change from the current approach. It makes no sense to me. Your donation shouldn't be taxed (generally). But any money you didn't donate should be taxed normally.

I now see what you're saying, and what you say Sully is saying. And I agree with you both as to what he's saying (though he may not be saying what he thinks he's saying) and that what he proposes makes absolutely no sense at all.

So say I.

jAZ
03-26-2009, 09:46 AM
This is correct. Everyone who is saying other stuff is confused. I don't even understand Jaz's $1,000 = $2,000 comment.

Charitable contributions are ignored for purposes of income earned. It's not a freaking tax credit. If that were true, nobody would pay a dime of federal income taxes.

Sully clarified his point. I was responding to his point as he intended it, not as it seems people were reading it.

He was saying (and I read it this way at the time) that if you donate $1000, you should not (as is the case in reality) be only allowed to make the donation completely tax free.

Sully wants to be able to take that $1000 as a deduction against other income.

That woudl have the effect of making both the $1000 as well as an additional $2000 completely tax free.

For every $1000 you donate, you'd have about $3000 of your income ignored.

HonestChieffan
03-26-2009, 09:47 AM
If they can confiscate income from wage earners and stop us from giving to charities, then the government will give it away wherte they want not where you want. Acorn will get what the Masonic Childrens home or Shrine Hospital got.

***SPRAYER
03-26-2009, 09:49 AM
If they can confiscate income from wage earners and stop us from giving to charities, then the government will give it away wherte they want not where you want. Acorn will get what the Masonic Childrens home or Shrine Hospital got.

But B.O. isn't a communist. Why would he do that?

:drool:

alanm
03-26-2009, 09:51 AM
Ummm... what hidden agenda is he implementing?Who said anything about hidden? He shouted Change from the rooftops. And when all is said and done and he's bankrupted America we'll be lucky to have change left in our pockets. :)

Ultra Peanut
03-26-2009, 09:52 AM
But B.O. isn't a communist. Why would he do that?

:drool:http://j.photos.cx/nau-7f4.gif

Who said anything about hidden? He shouted Change from the rooftops. And when all is said and done and he's bankrupted America we'll be lucky to have change left in our pockets. :)OH I GET IT

Remember before he'd taken office and everyone on the right was saying WHERE'S THE CHAAAAAAANGE FROM OBAMESSIAH? And then he changed some things, and everyone on the right was saying LOOK, LOOK, HE'S A COMMUNIST?

Good times.

Sully
03-26-2009, 09:55 AM
I now see what you're saying, and what you say Sully is saying. And I agree with you both as to what he's saying (though he may not be saying what he thinks he's saying) and that what he proposes makes absolutely no sense at all.

So say I.

I haven't given it a ton of thought, so admittedly, I may be missing some holes.

What are they?

Brock
03-26-2009, 09:56 AM
Acorn will get what the Masonic Childrens home or Shrine Hospital got.

Nothing, you mean?

***SPRAYER
03-26-2009, 09:58 AM
Who said anything about hidden? He shouted Change from the rooftops. And when all is said and done and he's bankrupted America we'll be lucky to have change left in our pockets. :)

The economy is deep in the crapper:

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aemO.zzB7LlE&refer=home

And we got an imbecile in the white house even elected officials in Europe are calling too socialist.

ROFL

Ultra Peanut
03-26-2009, 10:00 AM
The economy is deep in the crapper:

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aemO.zzB7LlE&refer=home

And we got an imbecile in the white house even elected officials in Europe are calling too socialist.

ROFLAh, yes. The Czech Republic: Europe's bellcow!

***SPRAYER
03-26-2009, 10:02 AM
http://www.thepeoplescube.com/images/Obama_Coin_ExactChange_160.gif

BucEyedPea
03-26-2009, 10:06 AM
Ah, yes. The Czech Republic: Europe's bellcow!

Eastern Europe's been more free market than we've been. They outta know only being released from the Iron Curtain not long ago.
Slavery is still fresh in their minds.

jAZ
03-26-2009, 10:09 AM
Who said anything about hidden? He shouted Change from the rooftops. And when all is said and done and he's bankrupted America we'll be lucky to have change left in our pockets. :)

Well if it wasn't hidden, why did you fail to learn what Obama annouced widely what he planned to do?

Velvet_Jones
03-26-2009, 10:09 AM
Obama can do no right. Scream about the economy, scream abuot deficits, scream about cutting costs anywhere, and scream about raising taxes directly or indirectly.

He can't move but to lose in the eyes of some.

Replace Obama with Bush and you got the last six years. Whats your point?

Ultra Peanut
03-26-2009, 10:12 AM
Eastern Europe's been more free market than we've been. They outta know only being released from the Iron Curtain not long ago.
Slavery is still fresh in their minds.Well, if Eastern Europe's incredible success hasn't shown us the way, nothing will!

Rain Man
03-26-2009, 10:13 AM
Well, if Eastern Europe's incredible success hasn't shown us the way, nothing will!

I hear that Eastern Europe is going to start opening McDonald's stores in the U.S.

patteeu
03-26-2009, 10:57 AM
If these wealthy donors are so truely charitable, an decrease in their tax deduction won't really matter. They surely weren't doing it for the tax write off, now where they?

Is this about the mindset of the donor or the welfare of the charity to you?

Obama's plan is effectively a tax increase on charities. Is the democrat appetite for increasing taxes never sated?

jAZ
03-26-2009, 11:02 AM
Is this about the mindset of the donor or the welfare of the charity to you?

Obama's plan is effectively a tax increase on charities. Is the democrat appetite for increasing taxes never sated?

The welfare of the charity depends on the mindset of the donor.

patteeu
03-26-2009, 11:02 AM
its ok that the rich get a bigger tax break on charitable contributions BECAUSE THEY DONATE MORE, but raising taxes on the rich because they make more is unfair. nice to see the right talking out both sides of their mouths.
Posted via Mobile Device

Where are you getting this "BECAUSE THEY DONATE MORE" nonsense? The main complaint from the right is that this is unfair BECAUSE THEY ALREADY PAY A LARGER PERCENTAGE OF THEIR INCOME IN TAXES. It's Obama who is talking out of both sides of his mouth here.

patteeu
03-26-2009, 11:07 AM
I don't think it's a remotely stupid question, but maybe the problem is that either I'm confused or everyone else isn't paying attention to what was said.



If I am in the top tax bracket and I have $1000 that am willing to donate.

That $1000 would be taxed at 39%.

I believe that the money I donate to charity shouldn't be taxed at all.

That meanst 100% tax-free, but that does not mean 100% deductable.

100% deductable means that approximately $2000 that I don't donate to charity are also tax free.

So that's why I ask... why?

Maybe I'm using the wrong terminology, then.
My bad.


It's jAZ who is misusing the terminology. What he's talking about isn't deductibility (a reduction to income before taxes are calculated) but instead a credit (a reduction from the amount of taxes owed after they are calculated).

Edit: Sorry if this has already been addressed.

Edit2: I see that you were both misusing the terminology.

patteeu
03-26-2009, 11:16 AM
The welfare of the charity depends on the mindset of the donor.

:spock: The welfare of the charity depends on the donations of the donor, regardless of his/her mindset. $100 donated for tax reasons = $100 donated for the love of children. But if there are two people who each have $100 to give and one gives for tax reasons while the other gives because he loves children, Obama's approach threatens half of the charity's income.

blaise
03-26-2009, 11:20 AM
:spock: The welfare of the charity depends on the donations of the donor, regardless of his/her mindset. $100 donated for tax reasons = $100 donated for the love of children. But if there are two people who each have $100 to give and one gives for tax reasons while the other gives because he loves children, Obama's approach threatens half of the charity's income.

It'll be better when the gov't doles out the charity via tax dollar funded programs. That way levels and levels of inefficient government employees can whittle it away until the people that need it only get a pittance.

jAZ
03-26-2009, 11:40 AM
:spock: The welfare of the charity depends on the donations of the donor, regardless of his/her mindset. $100 donated for tax reasons = $100 donated for the love of children. But if there are two people who each have $100 to give and one gives for tax reasons while the other gives because he loves children, Obama's approach threatens half of the charity's income.

SHTSPRAYER is going to call you out for saying that "Charity is a tax dodge".

jAZ
03-26-2009, 11:42 AM
It'll be better when the gov't doles out the charity via tax dollar funded programs. That way levels and levels of inefficient government employees can whittle it away until the people that need it only get a pittance.

Charitable contributions fall during bad economic times exactly when those social services delivered by charities are (or would be) in highest demand.

There's a reason why it's not the Utopia that Cons like to pretend it is.

blaise
03-26-2009, 11:56 AM
Charitble contributions fall during bad economic times exactly when those social services delivered by charities are (or woudl be) in highest demand.

There's a reason why it's not the eutopia that Cons like to pretend it is.

So we should just all rely on the government to disperse the money.

jAZ
03-26-2009, 11:57 AM
So we should just all rely on the government to disperse the money.

The government is a portion of the safety net.

patteeu
03-26-2009, 12:00 PM
The government is a portion of the safety net.

This taxation idea is an example of the government trying to increase it's share.

blaise
03-26-2009, 12:02 PM
The government is a portion of the safety net.

I just don't see how it's a good idea to basically discourage people from donating to charity just so the government can collect a few extra bucks that they're most likely to piss away anyway.

jAZ
03-26-2009, 12:04 PM
This taxation idea is an example of the government trying to increase it's share.

So is a healthcare program. The private sector chairty system has massively failed to meet the needs because people aren't as voluntarily charitable as Repubilcans like to assume.

jAZ
03-26-2009, 12:07 PM
I just don't see how it's a good idea to basically discourage people from donating to charity just so the government can collect a few extra bucks that they're most likely to piss away anyway.

Until a minute ago you didn't seem to see how there was any need for government funded social services.

***SPRAYER
03-26-2009, 12:07 PM
So is a healthcare program. The private sector chairty system has massively failed to meet the needs because people aren't as voluntarily charitable as Repubilcans like to assume.

ROFL

You're a communist stooge.

blaise
03-26-2009, 12:07 PM
So is a healthcare program. The private sector chairty system has massively failed to meet the needs because people aren't as voluntarily charitable as Repubilcans like to assume.

No one's saying that all facets of helping the needy should be handled by private charitable contributions (maybe some, but a very small percent I would assume). And how are you determining that the private sector charity has failed?
The point is that Obama is seeking to get more tax dollars from people donating to charities. How can you honestly think that's a good idea? Honestly. Take off the Obama glasses for two minutes and just think about it.

blaise
03-26-2009, 12:09 PM
Until a minute ago you didn't seem to see how there was any need for government funded social services.

No, I never said that. Are you referring to the statement I made that government offices waste money? Are you saying they don't?

patteeu
03-26-2009, 12:10 PM
So is a healthcare program. The private sector chairty system has massively failed to meet the needs because people aren't as voluntarily charitable as Repubilcans like to assume.

No it hasn't. Government has repeatedly undermined private charity over the past several decades and despite massive government spending over that period of time, their efforts to win the war on poverty have failed dismally.

Mr. Kotter
03-26-2009, 12:29 PM
So is a healthcare program. The private sector chairty system has massively failed to meet the needs because people aren't as voluntarily charitable as Repubilcans like to assume.

"Charitable" cost-shifting imposed by the industry, and tolerated by Americans who are covered by insurance....have created an alternative to socialized medicine that, while far from perfect, has meant that the unisured are not dying in our streets on a daily basis, as some leftists would have us believe.

Dallas Chief
03-26-2009, 12:29 PM
So is a healthcare program. The private sector chairty system has massively failed to meet the needs because people aren't as voluntarily charitable as Repubilcans like to assume.

You are so very correct. The Republicans way overestimate the charity of the other half.

***SPRAYER
03-26-2009, 12:31 PM
So is a healthcare program. The private sector chairty system has massively failed to meet the needs because people aren't as voluntarily charitable as Repubilcans like to assume.

You are so very correct. The Republicans way overestimate the charity of the other half.

B.O. and Olive Oyle gave a hundred dollars last year. Joe Biden gave like 200 bucks.

blaise
03-26-2009, 12:33 PM
So is a healthcare program. The private sector chairty system has massively failed to meet the needs because people aren't as voluntarily charitable as Repubilcans like to assume.

You are so very correct. The Republicans way overestimate the charity of the other half.

Well if the liberals cared about the poor as much as they claim they do, they should be flooding the nation with charitable dollars right?

BucEyedPea
03-26-2009, 06:42 PM
True. And not only that, many of them don't pay any taxes neither.

They use other people's money for charity.

Saul Good
03-26-2009, 08:56 PM
Ummm... what hidden agenda is he implementing?There has been no hidden agenda. The problem is that people built such a hatred of Bush that they literally voted for ABB without taking the time to realize what Obama was peddling.

Saul Good
03-26-2009, 08:59 PM
http://j.photos.cx/nau-7f4.gif

OH I GET IT

Remember before he'd taken office and everyone on the right was saying WHERE'S THE CHAAAAAAANGE FROM OBAMESSIAH? And then he changed some things, and everyone on the right was saying LOOK, LOOK, HE'S A COMMUNIST?

Good times.
Maybe they were talking about that war that we used to be in before Obama got elected. You probably heard about it. It used to be in the news.

Saul Good
03-26-2009, 09:02 PM
Charitable contributions fall during bad economic times exactly when those social services delivered by charities are (or would be) in highest demand.

There's a reason why it's not the Utopia that Cons like to pretend it is.

Perhaps that's because people have less to give. Liberals see "less to give" and believe "more to take".

Saul Good
03-26-2009, 09:04 PM
The government is a portion of the safety net.

Safety nets are great, but you don't whittle away the ropes of the trapeze in order to build a net out of the twine.

mikey23545
03-26-2009, 09:15 PM
If they can confiscate income from wage earners and stop us from giving to charities, then the government will give it away wherte they want not where you want. Acorn will get what the Masonic Childrens home or Shrine Hospital got.

Believe me, that's the whole idea.

sportsman1
03-26-2009, 09:17 PM
I just don't see how it's a good idea to basically discourage people from donating to charity just so the government can collect a few extra bucks that they're most likely to piss away anyway.

Exactly. And anyone that thinks this is a good idea.. should move somewhere like Europe, where the ideals would mesh better.

***SPRAYER
03-27-2009, 06:44 AM
Our debt to GDP ratio is so bad, we would be disqualified from joining the EU.