bpwallace49 Posted June 15, 2009 Share Posted June 15, 2009 only deductions being charitable donations. Interesting. Considering most chartitable organizations have tremendous overhead, isnt that like supporting corporate welfare? What defines a charity? And if it is a church-based organization, why should you get a tax break from the state or federal govts for financing a church? (separation of church and state?) Just throwing out some questions . . . but IMO a flat tax without deductions across the board with a poverty level floor is the way to go . .. example= Patti Blagovich was paid 100k a year at her last job at a charity for the homeless. So you should receive a tax break if you helped to pay her salary? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Savage Beatings Posted June 15, 2009 Share Posted June 15, 2009 My point wasn't to get into a tax debate... my point was that it is more than a little bit disengenuous of Obama to say that he wants to roll back to top tax rate to what it was under Reagan, when that could mean anything from 28% to 69%. I wonder if anyone will have the guts to actually ask him to clarify what that means? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted June 15, 2009 Share Posted June 15, 2009 My point wasn't to get into a tax debate... my point was that it is more than a little bit disengenuous of Obama to say that he wants to roll back to top tax rate to what it was under Reagan, when that could mean anything from 28% to 69%. I wonder if anyone will have the guts to actually ask him to clarify what that means? According to Hauser, the rate is irrelevant. Hauser's Law Hauser's Law is a theory that states that in the United States, federal tax revenues will always be equal to approximately 19.5% of GDP, regardless of what the top marginal tax rate is. The theory was first suggested in 1993 by Kurt Hauser, a San Francisco investment economist, who wrote at the time, "No matter what the tax rates have been, in postwar America tax revenues have remained at about 19.5% of GDP." In a May 20, 2008 editorial, the Wall St. Journal published a graph showing that even though the top marginal tax rate of federal income tax had varied between a low of 28% to a high of 91% between 1950 and 2007, federal tax revenues had indeed constantly remained at about 19.5% of GDP. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Savage Beatings Posted June 15, 2009 Share Posted June 15, 2009 (edited) According to Hauser, the rate is irrelevant. Well, it's relevant in that Obama himself brought it up... and he brought it up such a way as to invoke Reagan to try to make it look like he is somehow embarking upon a conservative economic policy, while being deliberatly vague on the details. Now why would he be vague about the details? It's a cheap parlor trick to say let's roll it back to the era of Reagan. One which your boy bpwallace here and I'm sure many others will fall for hook line and sinker. Edited June 15, 2009 by Savage Beatings Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westvirginia Posted June 15, 2009 Share Posted June 15, 2009 According to Hauser, the rate is irrelevant. I'd say that's more by design than anything else. Reagan's changes in the 80's were designed to be revenue-neutral. Besides, if you really believe that then what's the use in changing anything? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted June 15, 2009 Share Posted June 15, 2009 (edited) Interesting. Considering most chartitable organizations have tremendous overhead, isnt that like supporting corporate welfare? What defines a charity? And if it is a church-based organization, why should you get a tax break from the state or federal govts for financing a church? (separation of church and state?) Just throwing out some questions . . . but IMO a flat tax without deductions across the board with a poverty level floor is the way to go . .. example= Patti Blagovich was paid 100k a year at her last job at a charity for the homeless. So you should receive a tax break if you helped to pay her salary? 85% of money donated to charities is spent on services. So, only 15% is spent on administration. That is an average of the 200 largest charities. The most favorable numbers I can find on government administrative expense for social programs is 20% to 40%, and have seen some as high as 60%. There was a thread about about charities vs social programs a while back where I provided a number of links showing charities are much more efficient than the government. Maybe Big John can find it, if it wasn't deleted. I'm not sure what you are getting at with your separation of church and state comment. The first amendment places restrictions on the government, not religions. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". If anything an argument could be made that "separation of church and state" means the state can not tax a church. I'd also not the the term "separation of church and state" does not appear anywhere in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. It comes from a letter from Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Association to appease fears they the baptists had concerning concerning rumors that Jefferson supported the the desecration of religious symbols and sanctuaries during the French Revolution. These rumors were being spread by Federalists who also claimed him an atheist. Jefferson wrote the letter to assure the Baptist he wasn't going to take their bibles away and as a political jab at the Federalists. While President, Jefferson used federal funds to build churches and fund missionaries working among the indians. Patti Blagovich also pays taxes (or is supposed to) on the income she makes. I'm guessing Kathleen Sebelius pays taxes on the $120,363 she makes as well, of course that isn't a safe assumption given the record of paying taxes by Obama's cabinet members. Edited June 15, 2009 by Perchoutofwater Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted June 15, 2009 Share Posted June 15, 2009 According to Hauser, the rate is irrelevant. I'd say that's more by design than anything else. Reagan's changes in the 80's were designed to be revenue-neutral. Besides, if you really believe that then what's the use in changing anything? He's not trying to get more revenue, he is trying to provide equal outcomes, and since he can't make those with less have more, he is going to make those with more have less. It's trickle up poverty. Wow, even Ursa is coming to the realization that Obama's taxes aren't about raising money, or improving the life of the poor, but to punish those that have the audacity to work hard and make a good living. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted June 15, 2009 Share Posted June 15, 2009 He's not trying to get more revenue, he is trying to provide equal outcomes, and since he can't make those with less have more, he is going to make those with more have less. It's trickle up poverty. Wow, even Ursa is coming to the realization that Obama's taxes aren't about raising money, or improving the life of the poor, but to punish those that have the audacity to work hard and make a good living. The point of Hauser's theory is that tax rates are irrelevant to government income as they are always the same proportion of GDP. Thus the argument that cutting taxes to increase tax revenue holds as little water as increasing taxes to increase tax revenue. However, the really important point left unmentioned is how do these tax rates affect the actual GDP itself? It's all very well saying the tax revenue is 19.5% of GDP but if GDP goes lower, clearly that's a problem. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted June 16, 2009 Share Posted June 16, 2009 Perch, didnt you previously state (although not in this thread) how much you support charities through your church? So by donating to your . . . church . . . you get a . . . . federal and state TAX break? See the connection? Savage, the tax rate is complete irrelevant if that rate is never actually realized in net receipts. You can tax me 90%, but if I use the thousands of tax breaks built into the system and then get all 90% back . . . what was accomplished? You can wail about how badly the rich are treated, but until you actually find a upper bracket guy that actually PAYS that full rate, then y'all are just spinnin your wheels. Flat rate across the board with a poverty floor is the way to go . . . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clubfoothead Posted June 16, 2009 Share Posted June 16, 2009 About time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Savage Beatings Posted June 16, 2009 Share Posted June 16, 2009 Savage, the tax rate is complete irrelevant if that rate is never actually realized in net receipts. “That’s why I’ve proposed that we scale back how much the highest-income Americans can deduct on their taxes back to the rate from the Reagan years — and use that money to help finance healthcare,” Obama said. Hmm . . . dont most republicans try to identify themselves as "reaganesque" to separate themselves from GWB? What is wrong with this idea that brings back the good ol' days of Reaganomics??? So first you and Obama invoke the name of Reagan, trying to convince us that his economic policy is really conservative, even though you can't possibly give a definition of what it means to roll back the top tax rate to the Reagan era because that pretty much can mean just about anything. And then when I call you on that fact, your reply is... well the tax rate is irrelevant. Weak. Exceedingly weak. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted June 16, 2009 Share Posted June 16, 2009 Perch, didnt you previously state (although not in this thread) how much you support charities through your church? So by donating to your . . . church . . . you get a . . . . federal and state TAX break? See the connection? I don't get a break on state taxes, because we don't have state income taxes, and there are not any deduction on sales and property tax. Still, not sure what your point is? Is the food, clothing, and financial support my church provides the need any less helpful than that the Salvation Army or for that matter the government provides? If anything it is better than what the government provides as there are no one size fits all rules, it is based on a case by case basis. The local bishop decides if a person is truly needy, or if they just have messed up priorities. If they are truly needy they give them the help, if they are wasting their money on things they shouldn't be, they tell them to stop wasting their money, and don't give them any help. There is less chance of the system being taken advantage of. How does separation of church and state apply here? Again, read the 1st amendment, it puts limits on what the state can do to the church. It could be argued that the state can not tax the church, particularly if you want use today's language to interpret the 1st amendment like so many liberals want to do with the 2nd amendment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted June 16, 2009 Share Posted June 16, 2009 Hmm . . . dont most republicans try to identify themselves as "reaganesque" to separate themselves from GWB? What is wrong with this idea that brings back the good ol' days of Reaganomics??? So first you and Obama invoke the name of Reagan, trying to convince us that his economic policy is really conservative, even though you can't possibly give a definition of what it means to roll back the top tax rate to the Reagan era because that pretty much can mean just about anything. And then when I call you on that fact, your reply is... well the tax rate is irrelevant. Weak. Exceedingly weak. Next time I will put a emoticon for sarcasm you can understand. My position since I joined these always entertaining partisan debates was that I advocate a flat tax and it is immaterial what tax rate is artifically imposed. The joke is that it doesnt matter what the hell you set the tax rate as for the wealthy, because that amount is NEVER ACTUALLY REALIZED BY THE GOVT. Do you understand that savage? Do you "get" that with hundreds of deductions that "high tax rate" is never actually paid? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted June 16, 2009 Share Posted June 16, 2009 The local bishop decides if a person is truly needy, or if they just have messed up priorities. If they are truly needy they give them the help, if they are wasting their money on things they shouldn't be, they tell them to stop wasting their money, and don't give them any help. Soo only your Bishop decides who is in need and who is not? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted June 16, 2009 Share Posted June 16, 2009 Soo only your Bishop decides who is in need and who is not? Nope, there are other charities I also donate to, which have different criteria. I'm just saying my local bishop isn't likely to be handing out money to a guy that has a tricked out caddie, or a new boat. I can't say the same about the government. I'm saying that on a local level, that when the people doling out the assistance know the people receiving the assistance, they know the peoples circumstances and know why they are in the shape they are in. He isn't likely to give the money out to someone who continually makes bad decisions. He might give it to them once, but tell them no more unless they change their spending habits. Also unlike the government the church is more likely to help someone that is "well" off that hits a rough patch before he is financially ruined. Does this not make sense to you? I've said several times here on these boards I'm not against social programs, but I'm against federally funded social programs. Apart from just being against large government and for states and individual rights, it is also because I honestly feel that social programs can be much more efficient if administered on a local level, and common sense is used in stead of one size fits all rules. Do you disagree with this? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted June 16, 2009 Share Posted June 16, 2009 I'm saying that on a local level, that when the people doling out the assistance know the people receiving the assistance, they know the peoples circumstances and know why they are in the shape they are in. He isn't likely to give the money out to someone who continually makes bad decisions. He might give it to them once, but tell them no more unless they change their spending habits. Also unlike the government the church is more likely to help someone that is "well" off that hits a rough patch before he is financially ruined. I've said several times here on these boards I'm not against social programs, but I'm against federally funded social programs. Apart from just being against large government and for states and individual rights, it is also because I honestly feel that social programs can be much more efficient if administered on a local level, and common sense is used in stead of one size fits all rules. Do you disagree with this? These stances absolutely make sense. Doesnt mean I agree with all of them. But I think you are WAAAY off on thinking that people are getting public assistance that have "tricked out caddys" or "boats". If there are any, those examples are few and far between. To pretend that those are the rule, and not the exception is intellectually dishonest and untrue. Perch I get that you only support the state you live in and the people around you. I get that you are not in favor of providing assistance to others outside your area code, and that you are fiercely territorial in your views on well . . . . .everything. We just come from different sides of the same coin. I am a Rotarian, and believe that charity exists outside my community, as well as in it. I am fortunate enough to live in an area that is doing much better than the average community, and therefore have a broader view on charitable work. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted June 16, 2009 Share Posted June 16, 2009 (edited) These stances absolutely make sense. Doesnt mean I agree with all of them. But I think you are WAAAY off on thinking that people are getting public assistance that have "tricked out caddys" or "boats". If there are any, those examples are few and far between. To pretend that those are the rule, and not the exception is intellectually dishonest and untrue. My best friend has a worthless brother. If ever there was someone that should be labeled white trash it is this guy. The guy buys a pontoon boat, yet his on food stamps, and has no insurance so we all have gotten to pay for the births of his two kids. It happens all the time. It may not be boats, it may be direct tv, PS3s, big screens, gold teeth, 24" wheels etc....I could list 1,000 things that someone that is receiving public assistance has no business purchasing. They may not be is big as a boat or a car, but they all add up, and if someone is going to be that irresponsible and feel they can afford that kind of crap, then there is no reason you and me should be supporting them. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for helping those that are honestly trying and fate just slapped them in the face. Perch I get that you only support the state you live in and the people around you. I get that you are not in favor of providing assistance to others outside your area code, and that you are fiercely territorial in your views on well . . . . .everything. We just come from different sides of the same coin. I am a Rotarian, and believe that charity exists outside my community, as well as in it. I am fortunate enough to live in an area that is doing much better than the average community, and therefore have a broader view on charitable work. I think that any government assistance or support should come from the state or local governments, not the federal government. That is not to say I don't support national or international charities and relief funds. We regularly donate American Cancer Society, American Heart Association, Shriner's Hospitals for Children, the ARC, Cystic Fibrosis Foundation, Salvation Army, and to a lesser degree the Untied Way. My family is also very active and donating our time to charities, serving on boards, as special even chairs, and just donating our time. Just this past week I cooked 220 burgers at a party for children with cancer, and my wife served as finance chair for an annual event that generally raises $750,000 for the ACS. BTW, going fishing with 20 children with cancer or taking a boat full of mentally handicapped kids for a ride around the lake is truly humbling and will make you so thankful for what you have, particularly if you have healthy children. Edited June 16, 2009 by Perchoutofwater Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avernus Posted June 16, 2009 Share Posted June 16, 2009 ...does China still hate us?....gosh, I sure hope not.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clubfoothead Posted June 18, 2009 Share Posted June 18, 2009 ...does China still hate us?....gosh, I sure hope not.. If you are sick and cannot afford to get well you probably don't care. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avernus Posted June 18, 2009 Share Posted June 18, 2009 If you are sick and cannot afford to get well you probably don't care. so, that's a yes? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clubfoothead Posted June 18, 2009 Share Posted June 18, 2009 so, that's a yes? I don't know. My sister-in-law is 1/2 chinese and she likes me about as much as one can like me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avernus Posted June 18, 2009 Share Posted June 18, 2009 I don't know. My sister-in-law is 1/2 chinese and she likes me about as much as one can like me. she has obviously suppressed her chinese side...plus she obviously doesn't know you're a Cowboys fan... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.