Jump to content

Taxes and Charity


Magox

Recommended Posts

i obviously don't agree with you on catholic charities but we appear to agree on the separation of taxes and charitable giving. "give to caesar what belongs to caesar...".

 

 

I was being facetious regarding Catholic Charities. They do good work just like the Mormons do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 75
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Interesting, this is EXACTLY what Sean Hannity was blathering on about on his radio show today. Right wing talking points reach even this distant shore, lol.

 

 

Oh look, another left wing retard who spends his days listening to right wing radio. I bet Limbaugh and Hannity are glad they have such a loyal following. :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh look, another left wing retard who spends his days listening to right wing radio. I bet Limbaugh and Hannity are glad they have such a loyal following. :lol:

 

 

He was the liberal caller that called in to Hannity's radio show a few years ago and wanted to talk global warming. He said he was doing his part by driving a "Honda" Prius.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What are we judging here? Is there something nefarious from the actions of Romney from the link you just provided, other than the characterization of the word "funneled" that the author of the link used?

So whats the point of the thread?

 

What is the current battlecry of the left? Isn't it about "Social Justice", the inequalities of the incomes? Isn't that the crux of it all? So, the attack on Mitt will be that he favors the rich, that he is callous and that he doesn't care about "social justice".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This conversation prompted me to brush up on the tax deductability of charitable contributions. So I went to my "favorite" website irs.gov. I was going to cut and past this page to this thread but you guy's would kill be. But look how long this **** is and this is only one very small section of the tax code. WTF?!?!?

 

Just a little bit of information for your reading pleasure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your point is made as logically as usual... which means it displays none at all.

 

You know, it would be one thing if increased taxes on "the wealthy/rich" would go toward the problem of the age --- the national debt and unfunded entitlement obligations (SS, Medicare) but any additional tax revenue would be spent on this or that department/project. We've seen that movie too many times to say that it might end differently.

 

With the institution of the income tax comes the age of debt b/c pols can't stop spending.

 

The left's solution of more tax revenue is like giving an addict more crack and expecting it to still be there in the morning.

Thanks for responding, but you are forgetting that GOP spends way more on wars. Yes, spending going to continue to grow, we are going to take care of the "greatest generation" as they retire, that's just gonna happen, Obama or no Obama, that is going to be paid for, and if you really think Paul Ryan's plan is going to pass the muster of elderly voters--the majority of voters--you do not have a grasp of reality.

 

Romney does not have a job and earns 45 million a year and Ryan wants to make senior pay their own health care?? That's evil.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for responding, but you are forgetting that GOP spends way more on wars. Yes, spending going to continue to grow, we are going to take care of the "greatest generation" as they retire, that's just gonna happen, Obama or no Obama, that is going to be paid for, and if you really think Paul Ryan's plan is going to pass the muster of elderly voters--the majority of voters--you do not have a grasp of reality.

 

Romney does not have a job and earns 45 million a year and Ryan wants to make senior pay their own health care?? That's evil.

 

We're going to take care of the greatest generation when they retire? Saying you're a dumb as a box of rocks is being mean to the box.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for responding, but you are forgetting that GOP spends way more on wars. Yes, spending going to continue to grow, we are going to take care of the "greatest generation" as they retire, that's just gonna happen, Obama or no Obama, that is going to be paid for, and if you really think Paul Ryan's plan is going to pass the muster of elderly voters--the majority of voters--you do not have a grasp of reality.

 

Romney does not have a job and earns 45 million a year and Ryan wants to make senior pay their own health care?? That's evil.

 

The 16 year olds that enlisted on Dec 8, 1941 are 86, if still alive. :wallbash::wallbash: :wallbash:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for responding, but you are forgetting that GOP spends way more on wars. Yes, spending going to continue to grow, we are going to take care of the "greatest generation" as they retire, that's just gonna happen, Obama or no Obama, that is going to be paid for, and if you really think Paul Ryan's plan is going to pass the muster of elderly voters--the majority of voters--you do not have a grasp of reality.

 

Romney does not have a job and earns 45 million a year and Ryan wants to make senior pay their own health care?? That's evil.

 

I'll ask again, where do you get the idea that Romney makes 45 million a year?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

AGAIN!

 

 

In which I've said at least a couple times "The Point..."

 

 

The point of the whole thread which is going right over not just your head but others, is that the lefts attempt to stake the claim of champions of fighting for the causes of social injustices are hypocritical at best, when it comes right down to it, Conservatives are equal if not more willing to actually tangibly further this cause.

 

When ABC had a story on Mitt's charitable contributions, they characterized some of his donations as "sending" money to his church rather than "giving". An obvious veiled attempt at minimizing his contributions, almost as if it were law. Sort of like what you did with the initial post you had in this thread, or Birdogs pathetic attempt do demean and cast Mormonism as a racially charged and discriminatory religion.

 

But you have to remember that the liberal solution to the inequalities is more government not private charities or churches. So their actions go right along with their rhetoric.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally, I think the big "Tax the rich" uproar is a misunderstanding. If I am wrong, please tell me. My opinion, is that the rich should pay more in taxes- more in total dollars, not in percentage. Having them pay a higher percentage makes no sense to me. As far as fair share- I don't know what that means- who cares about fair. Life ain't fair.

 

On another note, I laugh at all of the socialism taunts out there. President Obama isn't a socialist and even if he was, he wouldn't be able to push a socialist agenda.

 

We see so much demonizing and demogauging (sp). Personally, I am for eliminating the primaries completely and letting all the candidates from both sides debate each other from the beginning, in front of an open crowd. Eliminate all the garbage and fake applause. Maybe it wouldn't be perfect, but it probably is better than pandering to the fringe

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally, I think the big "Tax the rich" uproar is a misunderstanding. If I am wrong, please tell me. My opinion, is that the rich should pay more in taxes- more in total dollars, not in percentage. Having them pay a higher percentage makes no sense to me. As far as fair share- I don't know what that means- who cares about fair. Life ain't fair.

 

The thinking behind it is that there's a substantial difference between taxing people's means of living, versus taxing discretionary income beyond providing for basic needs. The problems are 1) what's "basic needs" vs. "cost of living", and 2) how does that justify redistributing someone's discretionary income to others?

 

On another note, I laugh at all of the socialism taunts out there. President Obama isn't a socialist and even if he was, he wouldn't be able to push a socialist agenda.

 

No, he is. At least, more than any other president in recent memory.

 

And that's not a criticism (I don't agree with socialism...but I won't criticize someone just for being one). Just an observation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The thinking behind it is that there's a substantial difference between taxing people's means of living, versus taxing discretionary income beyond providing for basic needs. The problems are 1) what's "basic needs" vs. "cost of living", and 2) how does that justify redistributing someone's discretionary income to others?

 

 

 

No, he is. At least, more than any other president in recent memory.

 

And that's not a criticism (I don't agree with socialism...but I won't criticize someone just for being one). Just an observation.

I think we are pretty much on the same page, but you have a way of stating it that is more comprehensible than me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Excuse me for putting this in here, but I don't want to start another thread as it may give some certain clown a stroke and I wouldn't want that

 

 

 

Bill Gates has joined fellow billionaire Warren Buffett in calling for higher taxes on the rich.

 

“Even as the economy improves and you end the wars, you’re going to have to raise taxes and certainly, whatever form it takes, and I’m not an expert on this -- the rich should bear a larger increase than the rest,” the Microsoft Corp. founder and philanthropist told Fox News Thursday in Switzerland, where he is attending the World Economic Forum.

 

 

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/international-news/global-exchange/globe-correspondents/gates-joins-call-for-higher-tax-rates-on-the-rich/article2315908/

 

No electrons were harmed in the making of this post

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...