Right wingers donate more to charity , and it's not even close! by AURaptor

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

One of my issues with the tax system - we tax people below the poverty line. WTF ?

Now despite Rap's claim that 95% of 'them' don't pay taxes, we have a extremely regressive system. The poor and middle income people who can least afford it, pay ... and pay, and pay, and pay ... federal income tax, state income tax, SS tax, unemployment tax, sales tax, property tax, cigarette tax, alcohol tax, fuel tax, car registration ...

And anyone who wants skip income tax and go with sales tax just wants to double down on that system, and further reward the wealthy and grind down everyone else.

Obama's move to remove Bush's tax-break for the wealthy and provide some measure of tax relief to everyone else doesn't go nearly far enough.

Maybe he'll learn. Maybe not. My bet is that he'll only go as far as people actively demand. Otherwise, you can keep writing your checks to Geithner and he'll be happy to be the middleman, taking your money and giving it to the banks and Wall Street.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 15, 2009 8:00 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Maybe she had to; maybe her hands were tied, and it was politically expedient...

Mike

Trying on the Troll hat, are we?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

Just seeing how yours fits me!

Hey, you want to feel free to criticize the President without having a clue what you're talking about; I thought maybe your own advice might fit you.

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 15, 2009 9:21 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Excuse me miss!

Oh my! I haven't been called "miss" in about.... forty years! You made my day!

The remainder is a well-deserved hand-slap to me for saying something egregiously stoopid! You, Rue, TWG and anyone else who weighed in on this issue against me: all correct. Me, not so much!

CITIZEN: But don't you also pay VAT???
---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 15, 2009 9:31 AM

FREMDFIRMA

S'ok, we still luvs ya!
*hug*
If someone in this administration finds an ounce of brain cell and starts levelling out that nasty steep curve in taxes that prevents small businesses from becoming viable, it'd do a damn lot for economic recovery right there.

And I tend to get that odd look you just gave me rather often, I needed to pick up someone from the airport with Gus earlier today, and addressed a flight attendant (now having been informed this is the preferred modern address

) "Excuse me, Stewardess ?" - which I guess might get taken badly, but apparently the old fashioned chivalrous tone in which it was used sent her into a fit of giggles instead...

Hell, I still occasionally refer to Alice as a "Girl Friday", which drives her up the wall and causes her to remind me that this is 2009, not 1969...

Oops.

-F

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 15, 2009 9:41 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

You have no idea how something so silly can feel so good.

Rolls - $1.29
Ham - $4.99
Wine - $1.99
Still being carded - priceless

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 15, 2009 9:43 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

YOU still get carded??????

HEYA Frem: It's so liberating to be able to admit when you're wrong! And when I'm wrong, it's a doozy! I luvs ya back!

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 15, 2009 9:46 AM

CITIZEN

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
CITIZEN: But don't you also pay VAT???

On some things, but then you have VAT (or at least a sales tax) over there, at least in some states. I found yours a bit weird though, because it wasn't included in displayed prices. Was a bit confused by everything I bought being more expensive than I figured. We have council tax as well, which is anarchic bullshit put in by Thatcher as her big plan to remove the poll tax. If anything the Council tax is worse. But still, if Frem was paying nearly 40% tax that put him in the poor house, that's crazy. People on that sort of tax over here are pretty well off, my Dad is, and there's no way you could say he's starving. He's also living in one of the most expensive areas of the country, and he's pretty comfortable.

I guess my point is, we pay similar levels of tax, and we get a fair bit back from it. You guys get this massive military that serves to ensure it's needed by pissing half the world off by being there.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 15, 2009 9:57 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"YOU still get carded??????"

Here, they card anyone who they think looks younger than 30. And what can I say. He was very young. Very inexperienced. (And very Asian - I'm guessing he didn't have much experience guessing the ages of white people.) Very embarrassed at his error.

It was a fluke.

But BOY did I feel good !

And I said an enthusiastic thank you !

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 15, 2009 10:23 AM

RIVERDANCER

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
People donate to Church because they feel that the Church will perform good works in the spirit of the God or Gods they believe in.

I was under the impression that, at least in part, people donate to church because they've been told that if they don't tithe they'll burn in hell.
I could be wrong, as a vague outside observer on the whole subject. My father was a scientist and my mother didn't care, so none of these things were actually pounded into me as a child, but I do get the impression that not giving to your church = damnation.
I give at least half my tax refund to charity every year, and donate what I can for the rest of the year. It's not much, but I try. The most important to me personally are the clinics and Planned Parenthoods that provide badly-needed care to many poverty-stricken women, as well as the shelters and programs for victims of domestic abuse. Equality Now and the ACLU are also high on my list. I wonder if a lot of those would even be counted as charitable donations. I know there's a lot of it I can't write off. But I do it anyway.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 15, 2009 10:44 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"I wonder if a lot of those would even be counted as charitable donations."

My opinion is 'no', many would not be counted.

That's another part of my objection to the article, and something I mentioned earlier. If you delimit your data you can exclude whole categories of donations.

Geezer for example, quotes numbers of self-reported donations (and yet another problem, self-reported data). And there is a category of secular donations. But what do they include ? The Red Cross ? Probably. United Way of America ? Probably. Goodwill ? Probably.

The Nature Conservancy ? The Audubon Society ? Greenpeace ? What about EFF ? The Sierra Club ? The ACLU ?

While these are organizations that some people believe are working to create a better world, and to which people give quite a bit of money, many would not be counted as 'charitable' secular donations.

If you exclude the 'causes' many liberals donate to, you can show that liberals are stingy tightwads who preach charity but practice selfishness - and get to keep your smug, self-congratulatory world-view.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 15, 2009 10:52 AM

But that's really a key aspect of charity, isn't it? Charitable giving is a very personal expression of our values. And what one person considers a noble cause, another might think of as a insidious threat to our culture.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 15, 2009 11:02 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

People tend to think of charities as organizations that directly and immediately benefit people - those groups that will give a man a fish.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 15, 2009 11:05 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
People tend to think of charities as organizations that directly and immediately benefit people - those groups that will give a man a fish.

But not the ones that teach him to fish?

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 15, 2009 11:09 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Or let him fish and keep his fish ?
Or keep him out of jail for fishing ?

I don't know of any charities per se that are doing more than giving away fish.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 15, 2009 11:14 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Or let him fish and keep his fish ?
Or keep him out of jail for fishing ?

I don't know of any charities that are doing more than giving away fish.

I suspect many others have a broader definition. In any case, defining charity is problematic for these reasons. That's why this whole debate is rather moot. People have different values and priorities and will seek to make the world a better place in different ways.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 15, 2009 12:50 PM

THATWEIRDGIRL

SignyM, I'm not sure anyone's wrong in this thread....except for the ones that are.

The idea of charity and donations is a very gray area.

The tax things just annoys me right now because I've finally experienced first hand how skewed it is. I had an idea it was, but well, when it happens to you it seems more real.

---
Sometimes I lie awake at night, and I ask, "Where have I gone wrong?" Then a voice says to me, "This is going to take more than one night."
-- Charlie Brown
www.thatcostumegirl.com
www.thatweirdgirl.com

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 15, 2009 2:46 PM

It seems one possible reason why liberals give less can be seen in the degree of religious intolerance and ignorance that are displayed by some of the hardline liberals. Some seem to wish to ignore religious contributions entirely, while criticizing the author of this book for supposedly ignoring secular charities. Whether the author is skewing the data has yet to be seen, but religious contributions to charity, in my experience, amount to a huge percentage if not the majority of charity in this country. I know that at my church there are dozens of programs, all of them nonprofit, which are run for the benefit of the community. Soup kitchens, food and clothes drives and even community beautification. And almost every other church in the area does the same. Recently some of the members of my church have visited the homeless at great risk to their own safety to hand out blankets and food. Another point that was raised was the desire to discredit the charitable donations of churches by claiming that such donations were given out of fear of “hell.” Even if this were true the charity is still quite real. This reflects a deep cynicism among Liberals. Perhaps it’s time for Liberals to stop being so cynical and start gathering in fellowship with one another to practice ideals of charity and love the way conservative Christians do.

As far as what is a charitable donation and what is not, I agree that it can be a grey issue, but clearly we can agree that a giving to the Nature Conservancy is certainly not any better then a church run soup kitchen.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 15, 2009 3:15 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"I know that at my church there are dozens of programs, all of them nonprofit, which are run for the benefit of the community. Soup kitchens, food and clothes drives and even community beautification."

But do they come out of church donations ? No.

For example: "Catholic Charities - The largest private network of social service organizations in the United States works to support families, reduce poverty, and build communities." It has its own funding, its own donations, its own drives to support its various projects and programs. It gets none of the money that goes into the basket during services.

As far as I can see, church donations per se are money into a black hole that has nothing to do with 'charity'. And yet, they get counted.

That's one major source of inaccuracy in the data.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 15, 2009 3:20 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
"I know that at my church there are dozens of programs, all of them nonprofit, which are run for the benefit of the community. Soup kitchens, food and clothes drives and even community beautification."

But do they come out of church donations ? No.

For example: "Catholic Charities - The largest private network of social service organizations in the United States works to support families, reduce poverty, and build communities." It has its own funding, its own donations, its own drives to support its various projects and programs.

As far as I can see, church donations per se are money into a black hole that has nothing to do with 'charity'. And yet, they get counted.

That's one major source of inaccuracy in the data.

That’s nonsense, Rue. All of these church programs are funded through donations from church members and those giving to the charity, as well as manpower which comes directly from the church community.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 15, 2009 3:28 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"Catholic Charities received nearly a quarter of its funding from government by the end of the sixties, over half by the late seventies, and more than 60 percent by the mid-eighties, where it has remained ever since."

"62 percent of the local agencies reported a decrease in government funding in 2003, and 54 percent reported a decline in United Way support. In addition, the agency survey showed that 46 percent saw a reduction in funding from foundations, 34 percent saw a downturn in corporate funding, and 32 percent reported a decline in donations (individual donations) in 2003.
The survey of 1,029 Catholics in October shows that 87 percent expect to give more or the same to charities this holiday season, with only 13 percent saying they expect to give less to charity during the holidays. The poll indicates that 75 percent expect to donate the same amount as last year, with 12 percent planning to give more."

Church donations from the collection plate going to help Catholic Charities ? Not so much.

And yet - those collection plate donations get counted as charitable contributions. Though they go to help no one. That's my point.

It's not about whether Catholics, Christians, Mormons etc are charitable - it's about which donations get counted and which don't.

As the author of the study noted: when you take CHURCH DONATIONS out of the picture, more liberals give than conservatives. SHOULD church donations be counted as charity ? I'd say not.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 15, 2009 3:37 PM

You live in a fantasy world, Rue. Catholic Charities are legitimate charities regardless of your intolerance for the Catholic faith. Your argument is dead in the water.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 15, 2009 3:40 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

I see you managed to miss my point all four or five times I posted it.

I wasn't saying that Catholic Charities is not a charity.

I was saying that CHURCH DONATIONS are not. Why ? Because THEY don't fund actual charitable work.

Do you think you can miss that simple point one more time ?

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 15, 2009 3:44 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
I see you managed to miss my point all four or five times I posted it.

I wasn't saying that Catholic Charities is not a charity.

I was saying that CHURCH DONATIONS are not. Because THEY don't actually fund charitable work.

Do you think you can miss that simple point one more time ?

I got your point just fine the first time. You’re trying to confuse the issue. Nonetheless, church run programs, faith-based charities and non-faith-based church charities are not only completely legitimate charities, but they are major part of the charities of many cities. And many people rely on them.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 15, 2009 3:48 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

But CHURCH DONATIONS, which do not fund charitable programs, ARE counted in the study - and they should not be.

If you base your conclusions on skewed data - as the author does - then your conclusions are invalid. As his are.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 15, 2009 3:53 PM

Donations to my church go to fund several church run programs that are charities. So I don't know what you think you know about my church that I don't or what you think you know about a book you haven't read, but you obviously need to be little more informed.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 15, 2009 3:59 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Which programs ?

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 15, 2009 4:04 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Which programs ?

Scroll up. I've already pointed several of them out.

The people that give blankets to the homeless are not actually an official church program, so they don’t receive funding from the church, but nonetheless, they are members of the church who use their own incomes, their own time and risk their safety to help the homeless. These conservative Christians that you hate so much, this is what they do, at least many of them.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 15, 2009 4:14 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"Soup kitchens ..."
But these are not funded through regular church donations collected during service - they are funded through foundations, Catholic Charities, the federal government, even food drives - but not from the weekly collection plate.

"... food and clothes drives ..."
And here you acknowledge in your very own post that these are NOT FUNDED through regular church donations, but through special collections and drives.

".. even community beautification ..."
Not sure that this is a charity, and not sure that regular church donations fund this.

"Recently some of the members of my church have visited the homeless at great risk to their own safety to hand out blankets and food."
Where did the money come from to buy those blankets and that food ? Was it the weekly church donations or some special drive or fund - or other source ?

"All of these church programs are funded through donations from church members and those giving to the charity (Catholic Charities) , as well as manpower which comes directly from the church community."
But you say nothing (yet again) about regular CHURCH DONATIONS going to fund any of this.

So, you managed to miss not only the bull's eye, but the target - yet again.

***************************************************************

Please note - (also again) I'm not slamming the individual generosity of anyone, or their willingness to donate time. I'm simply saying that the regular weekly church donations are not charitable contributions.

Charitable work is funded through other sources that are NOT the regular, weekly church donations.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 15, 2009 4:30 PM

The soup kitchen, the food and clothes drives are all funded through donations to the church. The community beautification programs as much charities as the Nature Conservancy. And I’ve already explained the rest. Let me know when you come up with a point that doesn’t rely on your own pigheaded arrogance to pretend that you know something based solely on your prejudice of a religion or political view, until then you really don't have a point to make.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 15, 2009 4:36 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"The soup kitchen, the food and clothes drives are all funded through donations to the church."

Get your church's budget. Assuming it is fairly large, and they break their sources of income and their expenses down into categories - check it out.

Then get back here with the results - OK ? We'll have something to tlak about then.

Because the budgets I've looked at and the churches I know about - don't do that at all. (Unless you want to count prosthelytizing as charity work - which I don't.)

In fact, here are some examples. I challenge you to find the 'charity' work in the budgets

http://www.stjlc.com/BUDGET_2009_PROPOSED.pdf

http://www.tlcmv.com/Leadership/Budget_2008.pdf

http://www.firstumchurch.com/FY09Budget.pdf

http://www.stmaryscadillac.com/Annual%20Meeting%202009_files/09%20Budg
et%20for%20Annual%20Mtg.pdf

http://www.province7.org/TreasurersReports/BUDGET2009.pdf

http://www.stjamesgb.org/Search/Condensed%202006%20Income-Expenses%20.
pdf

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 15, 2009 4:44 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

If regular donations maintain the Church infrastructure, and that infrastructure is used to organize and deliver charity efforts, then even regular donations are contributing to charity.

Even if all the tithing does is keep the Church operational, it contributes to the good works.

You will note that many charities use funds collected to maintain their infrastructure and employees. This allows them to actually perform all that charity work they do.

Many charities, Churches included, may misspend some of their funds, and that is open to debate. But saying Religious donations don't count is a failure to see the whole picture.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 15, 2009 5:01 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"If regular donations maintain the Church infrastructure, and that infrastructure is used to organize and deliver charity efforts ..."

But that infrastructure is NOT used. Or it would show up in the budget. What you see is church donations going to maintain - more church donations. The ministers. The flowers.

And - is THAT how you want to excuse ALL church donations being counted as charitable ones ? Really ?

Aren't you stretching that just a little bit ?

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 15, 2009 7:03 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

Every charitable organization must do the following:

1) Maintain itself
2) Advertise itself
3) Advertise its focus
4) Expand itself (recruit).
5) Perform charitable work.

Perhaps you can illustrate for me how a religious charity (a Christian Church, for instance) differs from any other charity in this regard?

Let's take the Humane Society for instance.

They collect money. They pay for facilities and wages. They advertise their activities in many places. They run ads about abused animals, abandoned animals, and the need to spay and neuter animals. They consistently open offices in new locales and hire additional employees. They collect strays and abused animals, rehabilitate them, spay and neuter them, and adopt them out.

Let's take an organization I despise. The Catholic Church.

They collect money. They pay for facilities and wages. They advertise their activities in many places. They advertise about God, Christ, charity and love, and run information campaigns about how you can save your soul. They consistently open offices in new locales and hire additional employees. In addition to telling you how to save your soul, they run fundraisers to distribute food, clothing, housing, and counseling to those in need.

Both of these organizations could stand to spend their money more wisely and effectively, but they are both charities, and perform the same type of functions.

Disconnect yourself from their mandate, and they are just two charitable groups doing charitable work. But you have to disconnect your emotions from the equation, else you'll only see one group saving furballs while humans suffer and die, and another group hoarding wealth to subsidize pedophiles while providing minimal needed services.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 15, 2009 7:15 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

"But that infrastructure is NOT used. Or it would show up in the budget. What you see is church donations going to maintain - more church donations. The ministers. The flowers."

Hello,

The building, the ministers, the flowers, the pews, all that IS infrastructure used. People gather in the shadow of these (to you) petty implements and unnecessary expenses and it is during these gatherings that fundraisers are held, people are extorted to charitable christian behavior, and people are organized into volunteer groups to carry out charitable works.

It's used. Just not the way you'd personally prefer. My suggestion? Don't give to Church. You clearly can think of more efficient charitable groups.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 15, 2009 8:53 PM

SHINYGOODGUY

What I've learned, and a hard lesson to boot, is that those who have a lot 'lobby' to keep what they got; and those who have not foot the bill.

It's the age-old game of Status quo. The Corporations, the same ones with their hand out for Bailout Money, and the filthy rich pay little to no tax via loopholes and such. They, in turn, pay lobbyists to push their agenda to hold onto as much of "their" money as possible. But someone has to pay for the roads, schools, bridges, etc.

Along comes Joe Blow and whammo! "hey you, be a patriot and pay your taxes." The super rich remain in power and pay to have the Status remain Quo.

The solution: A Flat Tax. Have everyone pay their fare share. It has been proposed a number of times, but lobbyists rail against it because......
let's hear it, altogether now...........

SGG

Tawabawho?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 16, 2009 12:39 AM

I think a flat tax would be a step in the right direction. Tax all income above the poverty rate at exactly the same percentage. That still leaves a lot of holes, as income can be surprisingly difficult to define, but it's still worth attempting.

The usual objections come from those who've grown accustomed to using the tax code as de-facto legislation to promote "social change". That tendency is my biggest beef with the way we tax in this country. If some group wants to push people into a desired behavioral change, they should be honest about it and use real laws. The back-door approach of 'tax incentives' is a deceptive and fucks up a system that should be focused on generating needed government revenue.

As a side note, I'm a small-government advocate who isn't currently advocating tax cuts. In fact, I think we should raise taxes to accurately reflect the insane spending spree we're indulging. It might not be good for the economy in the short term, but it would be honest feedback for citizens who expect their government to perform miracles.

*** Disclaimer

I am, and will likely always be, fundamentally opposed to the idea of taxing income in the first place. It's a gross violation of privacy and essentially establishes us all as slaves of the government. The above argument is strictly in the context of the current assumption that we "must" tax income to survive as a nation. I don't hold with that assumption.
SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 16, 2009 1:29 AM

FREMDFIRMA

I feel ya, my empress - just don't never get as bitter as I am about it, ok ?

Yes, Cit, it's every bit as bad as that, in fact, worse - independent contractor, I got hit at about 34%, and as owner/operator of a small security firm it's about 38%

That's income ONLY.

Now add in property tax, sales tax, state and local taxes, seriously BRUTAL excise taxes (as in the tax itself being 160% of the products COST) cause god forbid I enjoy something other folk are morally or religiously opposed to, motor fuel tax, utility taxes, telephone line taxes, and the ever present additional bite come Apr 15th...

I tallied it up, and when you put it all together ?

FIFTY SIX PERCENT.
Of every penny I make or spend, more than half of it goes to feed the bloated, parasitic monster preying on me, and using that money for the most part on things in direct opposition to everything I believe in.

The sickest irony of it all, is that all that money for police protection comes to naught in this neighborhood, which is why site three hired us, cause to date the local PD has had a flat zero effectiveness, and if you include the lawsuits and legal bills from rampant abuse and corruption, in fact a negative effect on the community since the local perps are very well aware that the cops cannot be bothered to come here - as I mentioned elsewhere, they will issue a report number over the phone and that's IT, unless someones life is actively in danger, and at that point they send one car for a quick drive through and don't even stop or look around, and THAT takes 90+ minutes, if it comes at all.

And now all of the sudden they want MORE money than was budgeted cause they can't cover the lawsuits and legal fees caused by their own misconduct, and have resorted to open threats in their attempts to obtain it ?

How is this not extortion by a criminal racket again ?

So come May 5th, when we vote on whether or not to submit to their extortion and shell out the dosh via property tax millage, I am gonna pull my top hat, cape and regalia out of the closet, and I am going as Dynamo - and damn well gonna verbally decry their halfass, ham-fisted and inefficient villanry as unbecoming of proper evildoers.

One does not continue to maintain an obviously failed facade when their cover is clearly blown, it's uncivilized, nay, cowardly, and will not be tolerated!
*fist shake*

Ayep, imma START some shit, you bet.

-Frem
It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 16, 2009 2:54 AM

RIPWASH

I'm no expert by any means but I think another term being bandied about is a "Fair Tax" which seems more viable than a flat tax. As I understand it, the Fair Tax (and I could be wrong, mind you) allows for all NEW items to be taxed at a certain rate. New cars = tax, used cars = no tax. Groceries = tax, antiques = no tax. That kind of thing. This is "fair" because the rich spend/buy far more than us little people do and so would be essentially taxed more. There's a little more to it than that, of course, but that's the bare bones run-down of it.

I've heard that our income tax, as it stands right now, was never even really ratified when it was introduced in the first place and may be unconstitutional. Again, I may be wrong, that's just what I've heard. If anyone knows more about that, I'd like to see your sources so I can do a little research on it myself.

Zoe: "Get it running again."
Mal: "Yeah"
Zoe: "So not running now"
Mal: "Not so much"
- Out of Gas

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 16, 2009 3:04 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by RIPWash:
I'm no expert by any means but I think another term being bandied about is a "Fair Tax" which seems more viable than a flat tax.

The "fair tax" is just a national sales tax, which in my opinion is a worse option. Especially from the point of view of retailers who would essentially be conscripted as tax-collectors. But on the other hand, it would set up a healthy black market, which would be good medicine for overreaching government.

Quote:
I've heard that our income tax, as it stands right now, was never even really ratified when it was introduced in the first place and may be unconstitutional. Again, I may be wrong, that's just what I've heard. If anyone knows more about that, I'd like to see your sources so I can do a little research on it myself.

This may be technically true. But technical truth doesn't mean much to the judges who'll find you guilty of tax evasion if you don't pay. The constitution is only as strong as our collective will to demand that it be followed. In other words, pretty goddamned weak.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 16, 2009 3:11 AM

The Fair Tax is an attempt to eliminate the Income Tax. I’m a proponent of the Fair Tax because I think it does proportion the tax burden more fairly. There are some concerns with it. For instance, in an economic down turn, if the government’s revenue is supported through taxing purchases, then the revenue will decrease. I can see the problem here, but I think we can get around that by making government more flexible. The Fair Tax would force the government to spend responsibly, which it currently does not do. It would also force the government to work towards growing the economy, much more then it currently does, since its livelihood would depend directly on growing the economy instead of indirectly through voter support.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 16, 2009 3:26 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
The Fair Tax would force the government to spend responsibly, which it currently does not do.

How would it do that? Does the proposal include a balanced budget provision?

Quote:
It would also force the government to work towards growing the economy...

Not sure how this would provide any stronger incentive than income tax. In any case, "growing the economy" isn't the proper role of government. That's exactly what got us into the current mess.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 16, 2009 3:39 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
The Fair Tax would force the government to spend responsibly, which it currently does not do.

How would it do that? Does the proposal include a balanced budget provision?

Some versions do, or at least I’ve heard talk about that. However, I’m thinking more on the lines of a government whose revenue is tied directly to the consumption in the economy. When that consumptions decreases, the government will have to make due with less, so you’d think that this would lead to a more responsible spending overall. And it would also make the government more interested in increasing the economic activity all together in order to maintain its revenue.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 16, 2009 3:45 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Some versions do, or at least I’ve heard talk about that. However, I’m thinking more on the lines of a government whose revenue is tied directly to the consumption in the economy. When that consumptions decreases, the government will have to make due with less, so you’d think that this would lead to a more responsible spending overall.

Ahh.. ok. I guess I'm thinking it would take something a little stronger than that (more like a crowbar to the head) to steer them away from deficit spending.

Quote:
.. And it would also make the government more interested in increasing the economic activity all together in order to maintain its revenue.

Well, like I said, I don't want them more interested in that. What the hell, if we want to kick back and take it easy for awhile (or just be more frugal and save for retirement for that matter), why should the government be pushing us onto the hamster wheel?

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 16, 2009 3:57 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Some versions do, or at least I’ve heard talk about that. However, I’m thinking more on the lines of a government whose revenue is tied directly to the consumption in the economy. When that consumptions decreases, the government will have to make due with less, so you’d think that this would lead to a more responsible spending overall.

Ahh.. ok. I guess I'm thinking it would take something a little stronger than that (more like a crowbar to the head) to steer them away from deficit spending.

I’m never surprised by the government’s tenacity to preserve bad spending habits.

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
Well, like I said, I don't want them more interested in that. What the hell, if we want to kick back and take it easy for awhile (or just be more frugal and save for retirement for that matter), why should the government be pushing us onto the hamster wheel?

I want the government to encourage economy growth and I like the idea of the hardworking American, which I think is quickly becoming a thing of the past. For a long time, taxes were levied on consumption or production. Excise taxes, tariffs, custom duties were the way the government was supported. When we started taxing individual income we started to penalize individuals for their hard work and I don’t think that has encouraged hardworking American spirit to continue.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 16, 2009 5:25 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

AnthonyT

"The building, the ministers, the flowers, the pews, all that IS infrastructure used. People gather in the shadow of these (to you) petty implements and unnecessary expenses and it is during these gatherings that fundraisers are held, people are extorted to charitable christian behavior, and people are organized into volunteer groups to carry out charitable works."

Let me give you an extreme example - the Crystal Cathedral and its spectacular (and expensive) performances. Are you saying that people NEED it in order to be charitable ? That somehow they couldn't meet in the library, school or city hall ? Or the local restaurant (where we used to hold our charitable meetings) ? That DURING SERVICES people are actively holding meetings to run the food bank ? That they are actively running the shelters from the basement ?

What you think of as necessary is - ancillary. It could and has happened anywhere, and nearly always happens elsewhere.

The argument - that the elaborate church buildings, the fax machines, the sermons - are NECESSARY to charity is simply not true.

As I said before - and maybe I have to repeat it - this is not to say that some people who belong to churches are not charitable. If they do the extra work - hold the meetings, run the drives, distribute the services - then of course that is charitable work.

But simply paying the church contribution - which is never spent on charitable programs - is not in and of itself a charitable contribution.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 16, 2009 5:39 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

The Crystal Cathedral is indeed an extreme example. I have much smaller experiences with Church charity. People meeting in a church, people spending half an hour hearing a lesson from the Bible and singing songs. Ten minutes taking communion. Ten minutes giving money to the plates...

And Ten minutes of that Hour long service being encouraged to buy cookies to generate money for homeless shelters. Or being asked to volunteer for Church homebuilding initiatives. Or being asked to make a special donation to Carl's family who is suffering in the wake of his Cancer diagnosis. Or being asked to volunteer for the teen counseling program.

And then later, that same Church's support buildings are used. The hall serves a charity breakfast with prayer. Then the hall is used to organize the next food drive, then the hall is used for an after-school youth meeting to discuss the pressures of being a teen in a cruel world, and how to resist the temptation to slit your wrists.

Do people need all the religious trappings in order to be charitable? Obviously, Rue, some people do.

You are arguing against Religious Charity because you perceive it as inefficient. Meanwhile other charities use 10 cents per dollar of total revenues collected to actually help people.

Or less.

Charity giving is intention based. Religious charity givers intend that their religious tithings will go to do God's Good Work.

You may not like God, or Church efficiency, or the 'waste' of income on gilded golden crosses and preacher sedans. I argue this is just advertising and employee transportation.

Inefficient? Maybe. But many charities tend to be. Are you really only going to count the money that actually lands in the hands of the needy?

If so, tossing spare change at a bum on the street is probably the most efficient charity of all. No infrastructure or waste involved.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 16, 2009 5:49 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
You are arguing against Religious Charity because you perceive it as inefficient. Meanwhile other charities use 10 cents per dollar of total revenues collected to actually help people.

Not so. Depends on the charity.

www.charitynavigator.com

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 16, 2009 6:13 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
If regular donations maintain the Church infrastructure, and {if}that infrastructure is used to organize and deliver charity efforts, then even regular donations are contributing to charity. Even if all the tithing does is keep the Church operational, it contributes to the good works. You will note that many charities use funds collected to maintain their infrastructure and employees. This allows them to actually perform all that charity work they do. Many charities, Churches included, may misspend some of their funds, and that is open to debate. But saying Religious donations don't count is a failure to see the whole picture.

I smell a lot of "if" comin' offa that plan.

IF the church only uses its resources (buildings, staff time and infrastructure) 10% of the time to support charitable works, then it should be judged LIKE ANY OTHER CHARITY: 90% for "administrative and fund-raising" and 10% for "program expenses". On average, the non-profits reviewed by charity navigator spend about 80-95% of their money on programs, and 5-20% on administrative costs, fundraising etc.

Seems to ME that there is a GREAT DEAL of unwarranted cyncism about SECULAR charities... cynicism not borne out by facts.

But, to go back to Rue's point: If the quoted study counts ALL church donations as "charitable" then the data is badly skewed and quite obviously unrealistic. Like secular donations, church donations should be (but usually aren't) evaluated for which portion goes to "programs" and which portion goes to "other costs".

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 16, 2009 6:13 AM