Perchoutofwater Posted March 25, 2009 Author Share Posted March 25, 2009 Come tax time most people doing it for moral reasons/returning of help don't remember donating clothes or canned goods. They like to work to get their money. Not have lawyers squeeze oranges for everything they donate. Well considering 38% of voters are net takers so in reality don't pay any in taxes, and the top 10% pay 90% of the taxes, those of us that are really paying have more reason to look. Frankly I think more than half of what the government does it has no business doing, so why would I want to pay more, so they can expand even more? No thank you. Now if you want to go to a flat tax, and get rid of all deductions I'll be the first to sign up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted March 25, 2009 Author Share Posted March 25, 2009 They are trying to take back the posh treatment a certain tax bracket has received. It was something about CEOs stealing money from hard workers. Now the government is relaxing taxes on the other brackets who had their retirement savings stolen. Now the insiders are crying about making less money. What Ppsoh treatment is that certain tax bracket that pays more than the rest getting? If CEO's were stealing they should be thrown in jail. Taxes shouldn't come into it. The majority of the people that will be affected by this won't be CEO's anyway, it will be small business owners. But you've gone off on a tangent, we aren't even talking about how wrong it is to raise the tax bracket, we are talking about reducing the deduction on those that give the most, both to charities and to the government coffers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 This isn't about what is right, this is about class warfare. I don't think it's about class warfare. I think it's about finding money to pay for the massive expansion of government. if that money comes right out of the coffers of charities, so be it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 This isn't about what is right, this is about class warfare. Class warfare? Please. I take it wasn't class warfare when larger and larger portions of the total national wealth were being concentrated in fewer and fewer hands? Leaving aside the charity element, why is it that the arrival of the always-scheduled end of what was put into law as a ten year tax break for the wealthy and the return to the status quo is class warfare? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 I take it wasn't class warfare when larger and larger portions of the total national wealth were being concentrated in fewer and fewer hands? do you mean in the 1990s? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 The majority of the people that will be affected by this won't be CEO's anyway, it will be small business owners. Small businesses are set to receive considerable assistance under Obama - more than they had under the previous incumbent. Perhaps you've been misled by the lying commercials from rightchange.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 It would be a good time to review Aesop's most famous writing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted March 25, 2009 Author Share Posted March 25, 2009 Class warfare? Please. I take it wasn't class warfare when larger and larger portions of the total national wealth were being concentrated in fewer and fewer hands? Leaving aside the charity element, why is it that the arrival of the always-scheduled end of what was put into law as a ten year tax break for the wealthy and the return to the status quo is class warfare? Because you are going to take money form the few and give it to the the many through social programs. Obama and his gang have done a a good job on inciting the ire of the masses against a few high earners via AIG Bonuses, and now is going to raise taxes on all high earners. That is class warfare. Taking my hard earned money to pay for someone to sit at home is class warfare. When charities start to fail because of Obama's f'd up tax policy then it won't be his fault (have you ever seen a president pass the buck like this guy), no it will be the evil greedy rich's fault. He will have to swoop in and make up the difference filling in the void of the charities he helped kill (kind of like the mortgage industry he helped kill). So he will expand government even more, but that will cost even more. He will then say since the high earners no longer contribute as much as they used to, we need new programs so we will incerease their already crazy taxes even higher. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 Because you are going to take money form the few and give it to the the many through social programs. Obama and his gang have done a a good job on inciting the ire of the masses against a few high earners via AIG Bonuses, and now is going to raise taxes on all high earners. That is class warfare. Taking my hard earned money to pay for someone to sit at home is class warfare. When charities start to fail because of Obama's f'd up tax policy then it won't be his fault (have you ever seen a president pass the buck like this guy), no it will be the evil greedy rich's fault. He will have to swoop in and make up the difference filling in the void of the charities he helped kill (kind of like the mortgage industry he helped kill). So he will expand government even more, but that will cost even more. He will then say since the high earners no longer contribute as much as they used to, we need new programs so we will incerease their already crazy taxes even higher. Where to start? He will have to swoop in and make up the difference filling in the void of the charities he helped kill (kind of like the mortgage industry he helped kill). What? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted March 25, 2009 Author Share Posted March 25, 2009 Where to start? What? Howmuch did Feddie and Fannie give Obama, Frank, and Dodd to look the otherway? How much did AIG give Obama and Dodd to look the other way? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 The majority of the people that will be affected by this won't be CEO's anyway, it will be small business owners. on the contrary, I don't think they will be affected at all. those who will be affected are charities, non-profit organizations, and those they serve. I don't see any reason why people wouldn't give the same amount they had been giving, as a general rule. this is just about uncle sam stepping in to skim off their cut. say you're a semi-wealthy person who budgets $30,000 a year to give to various charities. if the government decides to start making you pay taxes on that, most likely you will decide to give $18,600, and the treasury will take the remaining $11,400. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted March 25, 2009 Author Share Posted March 25, 2009 Small businesses are set to receive considerable assistance under Obama - more than they had under the previous incumbent. Perhaps you've been misled by the lying commercials from rightchange.com Most business owners will end up paying more in taxes for every dollar earned two years from now than they do now under Obamas plan yes or no? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted March 25, 2009 Author Share Posted March 25, 2009 on the contrary, I don't think they will be affected at all. those who will be affected are charities, non-profit organizations, and those they serve. I don't see any reason why people wouldn't give the same amount they had been giving, as a general rule. this is just about uncle sam stepping in to skim off their cut. say you're a semi-wealthy person who budgets $30,000 a year to give to various charities. if the government decides to start making you pay taxes on that, most likely you will decide to give $18,600, and the treasury will take the remaining $11,400. You are absolutely right in what you are saying. Waterboy went off on a tangent and I let him pull me off with him. We went from talking about charitable deduction to tax brackets in general. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaP'N GRuNGe Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 Oh boo hoo. Those of us who don't itemize don't get to deduct charitable contributions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 Oh boo hoo. Those of us who don't itemize don't get to deduct charitable contributions. boo hoo? you understand, doun't yo, that we are talking about money the "evil greedy rich people" are trying to GIVE AWAY to charity? you understand that this really only hurts the recipients of those donations? orchestras, museums, organizations that feed the hungry here and around the world. they are the ones concerned about this. rich people who are greedy and keep it all for themselves....this doesn't affect them at all, it just makes them a little more likely to do so. in a sense, you could say it punishes those who give relative to those who don't....but really it just snatches money away from non-profits and sends it to washington, while dis-incentivizing very desireable behavior. I think fundamentally it reflects a philosophy that we, the government, know what to do with your largesse better than you do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 I think fundamentally it reflects a philosophy It's been a bang up 8 year job for your fundamental philosophy! Tell us more so we can learn and stuff! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yukon Cornelius Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 Can i pay the same percentage as you on my income as well? I mean you want to bring me down to your level right. now you have gone and jumped the shark again... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caveman_Nick Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 boo hoo? you understand, doun't yo, that we are talking about money the "evil greedy rich people" are trying to GIVE AWAY to charity? you understand that this really only hurts the recipients of those donations? orchestras, museums, organizations that feed the hungry here and around the world. they are the ones concerned about this. rich people who are greedy and keep it all for themselves....this doesn't affect them at all, it just makes them a little more likely to do so. in a sense, you could say it punishes those who give relative to those who don't....but really it just snatches money away from non-profits and sends it to washington, while dis-incentivizing very desireable behavior. I think fundamentally it reflects a philosophy that we, the government, know what to do with your largesse better than you do. See, many people don't understand the magic "charitable tax deduction" thing. They think that somehow making a charitable deduction puts more money in the pocket of the person making the donation, instead of just reducing the amount of money declared as income by the amount of the gift, and therefore the amount of taxes paid. Donating money doesn't provide extra income. I would like to see some math form someone on how giving money to charity somehow benefits the giver in a fiscal sense. The simple fact is that these large givers will give less. All of your "boo-hoo" statements aren't going to recoup the monies that these charities are losing to the government Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimC Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 (edited) We need to better define "charity". There are far too many "non-profit" charities that spend their money on first class airplane flights and hugh houses for it's executives. United Way will never see one red penny from me no matter how many babies starve. And don't get me started on organized religion please. If this country did a better job of defining true charities and not these hack jobs, you'd see a large increase in true charities. I'm all for letting charities that feed starving babies not pay taxes...I'm not all for keeping Reverend Crook drving around in his Mercedes because he doesn't pay taxes. Anyways, I believe the point is that most people and Corporations give a percentage (and that won't change under any tax law). But it's who this percentage is given to that make a real difference. The more United Way gets to be driven around in limousines is less that a great charity gets. We were danged near forced to give to United Way back in the day at my company. Those f'ers stole money out of people that really needed it. These charities should be investigated and shut down and churches should have to pay some (if not alot more) taxes. Sooo many scam churches out there. Edited March 25, 2009 by TimC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caveman_Nick Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 We need to better define "charity". There are far too many "non-profit" charities that spend their money on first class airplane flights and hugh houses for it's executives. United Way will never see one red penny from me no matter how many babies starve. And don't get me started on organized religion please. If this country did a better job of defining true charities and not these hack jobs, you'd see a large increase in true charities. I'm all for letting charities that feed starving babies not pay taxes...I'm not all for keeping Reverend Crook drving around in his Mercedes because he doesn't pay taxes. Anyways, I believe the point is that most people and Corporations give a percentage (and that won't change under any tax law). But it's who this percentage is given to that make a real difference. The more United Way gets to be driven around in limousines is less that a great charity gets. We were danged near forced to give to United Way back in the day at my company. Those f'ers stole money out of people that really needed it. These charities should be investigated and shut down and churches should have to pay some (if not alot more) taxes. Sooo many scam churches out there. I am very careful who I give money to for this reason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WaterMan Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 What posh<-- *fixed* treatment is that certain tax bracket that pays more than the rest getting? Really? This thread is about you complaining that you aren't getting extra money for giving your expensive items that many people can not afford to charity. I guess you didn't hear about that 39%... If CEO's were stealing they should be thrown in jail. Taxes shouldn't come into it. some CEOs are currently in jail only because they knew they were screwed. And you brought taxes into your thread by saying you pay the most. Could there be another reason why the rich pay the most taxes besides because they have the most? Jealousy because their bank accounts are bigger in Texas right? But you've gone off on a tangent, we aren't even talking about how wrong it is to raise the tax bracket, we are talking about reducing the deduction on those that give the most, both to charities and to the government coffers. People losing extra money donating boats doesn't seem like such a big deal when many more American citizens are losing homes and jobs. This is why there is so much wealth concentrated at the top. Greed at it's finest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmarc117 Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 he is simply spelling it differently W E L F A R E Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caveman_Nick Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 People losing extra money donating boats doesn't seem like such a big deal when many more American citizens are losing homes and jobs. This is why there is so much wealth concentrated at the top. Greed at it's finest. If there is no tax incentive they aren't going to donate the boat. They lose nothing. Only the charity they would have donated to loses out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yo mama Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 (edited) See, many people don't understand the magic "charitable tax deduction" thing. They think that somehow making a charitable deduction puts more money in the pocket of the person making the donation, instead of just reducing the amount of money declared as income by the amount of the gift, and therefore the amount of taxes paid. Donating money doesn't provide extra income. Umm, that isn't always true. But the planning involved is a lot more sophisticated than dropping off a shopping bag full of old socks at your local Goodwill on December 30th. Though to be fair, the planning involved would never be useful to your average taxpayer. I guess all I'm saying is there are various exotic exceptions to the otherwise general rule you've stated. Edited March 25, 2009 by yo mama Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caveman_Nick Posted March 26, 2009 Share Posted March 26, 2009 Umm, that isn't always true. But the planning involved is a lot more sophisticated than dropping off a shopping bag full of old socks at your local Goodwill on December 30th. Though to be fair, the planning involved would never be useful to your average taxpayer. I guess all I'm saying is there are various exotic exceptions to the otherwise general rule you've stated. Sure there are. So if there are loopholes, close the loopholes. This isn't closing loopholes, it's screwing the charities. I owned a piece of land a few years ago. I was presented with one of these loophole scenarios where I could dump the piece of land into a land conservation and get a "highest and best use" tax deduction from the donation. I didn't pay anything for the land (it was an attached lot to a house I owned), and so this would have been sheer profit and a clear tax loophole. I chose not to do anything shady like that and sold it with the house. I have seen other things done. I don't like those games. Obama talked about going through things like a surgeon. He's using a hammer on this problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts