OT: OBAMA SOAKS THE RICH: CHURCHES, DAY CARE, HOMELESS SHELT

Raj wrote:Rooster's quotation came from Dick Morris. It's worth doing a bit of research on Morris if you care to judge how seriously to take his analysis.

Isn't Dick Morris the one who pioneered a new OSA treatment which attempts to keep the airway open by cramming a hooker's toe down his throat?

With "Off Topic" threads, you have several options......
You can ignore them
You can read them and decide for yourself whether it's informative.
Or, you can jump in and express your own opinions. (of course, in a dignified way)

Den (staying out of this one.....for the moment)

oh_possum wrote:

Raj wrote:Rooster's quotation came from Dick Morris. It's worth doing a bit of research on Morris if you care to judge how seriously to take his analysis.

Isn't Dick Morris the one who pioneered a new OSA treatment which attempts to keep the airway open by cramming a hooker's toe down his throat?

In the words of Larry the Cable guy "I don't care who you are, that's funny right there."

janp wrote: ........I didn't expect the vitriol!!

Jan

Jan,

I would be interested to know where you saw the vitriol because I took an effort to cut all of it out of Morris's column (and there was some vitriol in the column). What did I miss?

The sections I quoted were about math and the key point was "they provided charity with $81 billion in that year. Obama's plan will cost them $10 billion in extra taxes on the income they allocated to charitable donations."

So charitable donations of $81 billion are being hit with $10 billion in taxes. Do we expect the people making these donations to lay out an extra $10 billion to maintain the level that the charitable organizations receive? Do we want to transfer private donations to charities to government?

Private charities have an excellent track record of doing good things for our fellow man.

So Jan, what in the quote do you consider vitriol?

Best regards,

Rooster
Often vitriolic, but not in this thread

DreamStalker wrote:Well ... I don't see anything "charitable" about rich people giving money to their favorite non-profit ONLY if they get a tax break. If they are really charitable, whether or not they get a tax break should make no difference. ............

Sorry DS, the math does not work like that.

Under certain conditions, charitable contributions can be deducted from your income before calculating the tax. Most of the people in the quote would be in a marginal tax bracket (for 2008) of 28, 33, or 35%.

For sake of an example, let's assume I am in the 33% bracket. I want to give $1,000 to the local food bank. I discuss it with my CPA. He tells me it is totally deductible. Now the way many charitable givers think, including me, is, "OK, it is deductible, I will write a check to the food bank for $1,300."

When I file my tax return, I deduct $1,300 from my taxable income for a savings of $300 in taxes. So my net outlay is $1000 but the food bank gets $1,300.

So yes, changing the deductibility will have a big impact on donations to charities.

(But don't get me started on our tax code. That will be a new thread. I am for FairTax which would mean the elimination of all deductions. Government should not be in the business of pushing our social lives in any direction, left or right.)

Rooster
Vitriolic awake, deathly vitriolic asleep

Jan,

This forum has become like family to many of the regulars. Seems we spend a lot of time hanging around the "kitchen table" telling each other how much we like them and bitching about taxes and news articles that are obviously written by very opinionated folks of all persuasions. Family here includes all flavors of society; rich/poor; gay/straight; harley riders/bicycle riders;liberal/conservatives;greenies/polluters; doctors/patients, and more.

Picture this group around any kitchen table and you can see how strong opinions and vigorous debate will be discussed. Most of the time it's civil but occasionally one cannot see how the other could possibly be so blind as to not agree with their position.

I mostly listen in and chuckle, but have come to be quite fond of this bunch and hope you feel comfortable with them also. We're good folks so don't give up on us.

rooster wrote:

janp wrote: ........I didn't expect the vitriol!!

Jan

Jan,

I would be interested to know where you saw the vitriol because I took an effort to cut all of it out of Morris's column (and there was some vitriol in the column). What did I miss?

The sections I quoted were about math and the key point was "they provided charity with $81 billion in that year. Obama's plan will cost them $10 billion in extra taxes on the income they allocated to charitable donations."

So charitable donations of $81 billion are being hit with $10 billion in taxes. Do we expect the people making these donations to lay out an extra $10 billion to maintain the level that the charitable organizations receive? Do we want to transfer private donations to charities to government?

Private charities have an excellent track record of doing good things for our fellow man.

So Jan, what in the quote do you consider vitriol?

Best regards,

Rooster
Often vitriolic, but not in this thread

I TOTALLY AGREE with Rooster, OT definately means Off Topic and every FORUM has one, lol

Rooster, I wasn't attacking Morris, just suggesting that some knowledge of where he's coming from may provide a guide to his perspective, nor did I assume you were taking his opinions, which were filled with assumptions, at face value. The most troubling aspect of the quote to me was the point DreamStalker focussed on: the implication that the only reason the well-to-do, very well-to-do, and just plain filthy rich give to charities is to get the tax break. I do agree with you that if removing the deductable includes those who couldn't afford to be generous otherwise, it would have an impact.

I avoid arguing about politics because people's opinions tend to become part of their identities and when you challenge these opinions, survival instincts usually kick in, making them cling to their opinions even harder. Personally, I'm taking a wait and see attitude toward Obama's policies. Economics is such a complex and uncertain science -- dependent on factors ranging from the purely psychological to natural catastrophies -- that I prefer to observe the results of specific policies, at least over a few years, before attempting to assess them. If and when I can see a clear pattern emerging, I intend to remember it for future voting decisions. I observed the results of Reagan's application of his "trickle-down" theory with great interest and find it remarkable how few people actually remember those consequences.

If it makes you feel better Rooster, I can tell you that with or without Obama's administration's help, a great many businesses are getting involved in private-sector support for the less fortunate. Check out SVN, for example, the Social Venture Network for a new business model that supports local communities.

Julie wrote:What's going to change is that "charity" will be given out by the gov't and spread around to those who need it, plus those other people (the ones with money going in) will still give, if only to continue to get write-offs. Why is it that anyone who doesn't stick up for the uber-rich is automatically a Marxist?

Well, it's not the goverment's place to decide "who needs it". The reason many of us equate Marxism with plans to penalize the "uber rich" is because that is exactly what it is, Marxism. Penalizing those who have worked harder, taken risks in business and succeeded or who just have more money that some of us do, is wrong. Taking “From each according to his capacity, to each according to his needs.” IS Marxism, plain and simple. That line was written by Karl Marx.....and that is exactly what the government is proposing to do, forcibly taking "from each according to his capacity" and giving "to each according to his needs."

I am tired of people constantly slamming those who have money and means. In many cases, it is those folks who are providing the jobs for those of us who make an average wage, who are funding the shelters for those who are unwilling or unable to work, and other charities. If you want to know what is wrong with the philosophy, take a look at initiative and quality of workmanship in any country that has enacted that policy.

<stepping off soapbox>

rooster wrote:

Raj wrote:Rooster's quotation came from Dick Morris. It's worth doing a bit of research on Morris if you care to judge how seriously to take his analysis.

Raj,

I suggest an approach better than attacking personalities (Dick Morris's), is to look into the facts behind the Dick Morris excerpt. I admit to not having done this.
Regards,

I did check into it....From the Washington Post:

Charity tax limits upset many
Stephen Dinan (Contact) and David R. Sands (Contact)
Friday, February 27, 2009

Democrats and Republicans poured cold water on President Obama's budget plan to cut down on wealthy taxpayers' charitable giving tax deductions, the second of his ambitious cost-savings plans to earn lawmakers' scorn, and underscoring the legislative minefield he is entering...

...From his plan to cut payments to farmers, which both parties all but ruled out this week, to his goal of a complex cap-and-trade system to control greenhouse gas emissions, lawmakers predicted Mr. Obama will have to survive challenges from political friends and foes alike...

..."I work for the American people, and I'm determined to bring the change that the people voted for last November.And that means cutting what we don't need to pay for what we do," Mr. Obama said in announcing his budget. ... (Inserted comment by Deb: I find it interesting he includes his charitable contribution cap in this statement)

...Still, the charitable giving deduction reduction, which would limit deductions for couples making $250,000 or individuals making $200,000, provoked the most heat Thursday. Mr. Obama is counting on that provision to raise $179.8 billion over 10 years.
"Some of the reforms and offsets contained or referenced in the budget, such as the limitation on itemized deductions, raise concerns and will require more study as we determine the best policies for getting America back on track," said Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, Montana Democrat.

Roberton Williams, senior fellow at the Tax Policy Center, said it's impossible to calculate the exact effects of all the tax changes, but said the overall result is clear - less philanthropic giving.

Government needs to stay out of our lives as much as possible.
Tax code as it is now stinks.
OT is off topic.
There's nothing vitriol in this thread (yet! LOL)

I try to stay away from posting in political or controversial threads because I'm very opinionated and can get all worked up!! (But, I do read them all. )

Anyway, thanks, Rooster. Your OT threads are all very interesting!!

Pam

OldLincoln wrote: harley riders

Don't forget the Honda riders...hubby just bought me a Honda Rebel, we pick it up next Friday down in Boca.

Debjax wrote:
<snip>Well, it's not the goverment's place to decide "who needs it". The reason many of us equate Marxism with plans to penalize the "uber rich" is because that is exactly what it is, Marxism. Penalizing those who have worked harder, taken risks in business and succeeded or who just have more money that some of us do, is wrong. Taking “From each according to his capacity, to each according to his needs.” IS Marxism, plain and simple. That line was written by Karl Marx.....and that is exactly what the government is proposing to do, forcibly taking "from each according to his capacity" and giving "to each according to his needs."

I am tired of people constantly slamming those who have money and means.

<stepping off soapbox>

No, you can stay on your soapbox, and I'll join you! And I am FAR from rich, much less uber rich. Middle class might even be stretching it.

Well, since we're on a political topic....here's an interesting perspective on the current financial meltdown....

(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMnSp4qEXNM&NR=1)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=usvG-s_Ssb0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi ... re=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ivmL-lXNy64

Julie wrote:What's going to change is that "charity" will be given out by the gov't and spread around to those who need it, plus those other people (the ones with money going in) will still give, if only to continue to get write-offs. Why is it that anyone who doesn't stick up for the uber-rich is automatically a Marxist?

lol.

You take $1.00 and give it to charity and you have a fighting chance that $1.00 will go to helping someone. Even get into an organization like the United Way that some feel have a large overhead and some profiteering and you still have a legitimate chance that 50 cents of each $1.00 goes to helping someone.

Now take that $1.00 and give it to the U.S. Government. You're lucky if after all the bureaucracy ten cents of that money ends up helping someone.

So yeah, I'm all for sticking it to the uber-rich because they've got so much dough and I don't, but I'd certainly like to do so without shifting the uber-richness to our stinking government. But I also want to find a way to stick it to the uber rich without becoming a socialist society where no one has any incentive to achieve anything because we decided that worthless individuals like Paris Hilton are so repugnant that we opted to throw out the baby with the bath water to avoid such travesties...