How does this make sense?

Cannon Shell · #1 03-24-2009, 09:25 PM

Only the sickness called liberalism would believe it is the "right thing" to intentionally injure charities in order to "stick it to the rich". Great time to decrease incentive for giving. The important thing is the giving, not the reasoning behind the giving.

Riot · #2 03-25-2009, 12:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Only the sickness called liberalism would believe it is the "right thing" to intentionally injure charities in order to "stick it to the rich". Great time to decrease incentive for giving. The important thing is the giving, not the reasoning behind the giving.

This money is supposed to fund health care reform.

If the important thing were truely the giving, then changing the percentage of charitable donations people who earn over $250,000 per year can deduct from 35% to 28% wouldn't decrease their giving at all.

But apparently the important thing for these folks isn't the giving, it's indeed the amount of tax deduction one gets from giving.

Don't worry, this one won't pass in the fall.

dellinger63 · #3 03-25-2009, 07:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Riot

This money is supposed to fund health care reform.

If the important thing were truely the giving, then changing the percentage of charitable donations people who earn over $250,000 per year can deduct from 35% to 28% wouldn't decrease their giving at all.

But apparently the important thing for these folks isn't the giving, it's indeed the amount of tax deduction one gets from giving.

Don't worry, this one won't pass in the fall.

Yea you all figured it out. The rich give for deductions. They love giving a million and getting $350K as a deduction. Great business and all. It gives them the feeling of being a legislator.

Sad part about this is Universities and Hospitals, large recipients of endowments and donations will take a hit but I know there are more important factors than Healthcare and Education to deal with right now. Like making it fair, tax-wise for low income people to give to charity. Talk about taking your eye off the ball!

Riot · #4 03-25-2009, 02:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dellinger63

Yea you all figured it out. The rich give for deductions. They love giving a million and getting $350K as a deduction. Great business and all. It gives them the feeling of being a legislator.

Sad part about this is Universities and Hospitals, large recipients of endowments and donations will take a hit but I know there are more important factors than Healthcare and Education to deal with right now. Like making it fair, tax-wise for low income people to give to charity. Talk about taking your eye off the ball!

Yes, people in that earning level certainly do give for tax deductions, it's an important part of tax planning for that income bracket.

The estimate is that charitable donations would decrease by 1.7% (Obama team) to 3.7% worse case scenario (some independent org that monitors charitable deductions whose name I can't remember, I read it yesterday)

But again, there are already so many Dems and Repubs against this, it won't pass in the fall.

SOREHOOF · #5 03-25-2009, 02:37 PM

This way the Govt decides which charities get money, then raise everyone's taxes to pay for it. Appearantly the Govt's pet charities aren't getting enough $$ from the private sector.

Riot · #6 03-25-2009, 02:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SOREHOOF

This way the Govt decides which charities get money, then raise everyone's taxes to pay for it. Appearantly the Govt's pet charities aren't getting enough $$ from the private sector.

Wow. That's .... imaginative.

SOREHOOF · #7 03-25-2009, 03:17 PM

Thank you.

Cannon Shell · #8 03-25-2009, 09:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaHoss9698

Maybe one of the "thinkers" here can explain this one. How will this effect the poor? If the rich aren't giving for the deductions, then why would this be a roadblock to donating?

If you decrease incentive for giving to charity....

you figure the rest out.

Antitrust32 · #9 03-25-2009, 09:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

If you decrease incentive for giving to charity....

you figure the rest out.

LOL

Smooth Operator · #10 03-25-2009, 10:20 AM

Like BO said last night, the Bush-Cheney-GOP-Asleep-at-the-Wheel-(Hell-COMATOSE-at-the-Wheel) Depression that we're in will have a much greater impact on charitable giving...

timmgirvan · #11 03-25-2009, 10:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Smooth Operator

Like BO said last night, the Bush-Cheney-GOP-Asleep-at-the-Wheel-(Hell-COMATOSE-at-the-Wheel) Depression that we're in will have a much greater impact on charitable giving...

Yup...if you tell a lie often enough, people start to believe it!

Cannon Shell · #12 03-25-2009, 10:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Smooth Operator

Like BO said last night, the Bush-Cheney-GOP-Asleep-at-the-Wheel-(Hell-COMATOSE-at-the-Wheel) Depression that we're in will have a much greater impact on charitable giving...

Yeah so he is going to help by making it less attractive to give. That makes perfect sense.

At least attempt to come up with an original response.

Cannon Shell · #13 03-25-2009, 06:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaHoss9698

Like Bob, I don't see people not giving because of the lack of deduction. We'll see. I understand what you are saying, and it makes sense. But I guess the human in me is hoping that people are donating because they want to and not for the deduction.

It is simple economics. Eliminate a % of tax incentive, eliminate a % of revenue to charity. That is how it works. If you make less money, you spend less money. Same concept.

The issues not only is the negative effect on charity, what troubles me is the reasoning given. To make it "fair" to lower income givers? Has ANYONE ever given to charity and felt ripped off because someone else may have given more and gets a tax benefit from it?

Cannon Shell · #14 03-25-2009, 06:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaHoss9698

Well, it should be obvious that charities were going to be suffering anyway. You know how bad the economy is right now. I just don't see this affecting how the super wealthy donates. And it's certainly not going to affect the how the not so wealthy donates, not the way things are right now.

So if they are suffering anyway now is the time to push through more class warfare legislation because the economic downturn and Bush can be blamed in the end? I cant understand how you and Bob keep referring to the super wealthy especially since we are talking about people who make 250k or more, the vast majority who wouldnt be considered super wealthy. And in case you hadn't been paying attention to the news a lot of the super wealthy arent so wealthy anymore...

GBBob · #15 03-25-2009, 06:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

So if they are suffering anyway now is the time to push through more class warfare legislation because the economic downturn and Bush can be blamed in the end? I cant understand how you and Bob keep referring to the super wealthy especially since we are talking about people who make 250k or more, the vast majority who wouldnt be considered super wealthy. And in case you hadn't been paying attention to the news a lot of the super wealthy arent so wealthy anymore...

If you believe what Obama is doing is right for this country you believe that there will be more money to donate by all classes in the near future. You are focusing on one aspect of his plan as the logic for a decrease in charitable donations when I think that is part of the package that will help everyone out. Which in turn helps out charities. You guys are being too miopic.

Cannon Shell · #16 03-25-2009, 09:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Riot

This money is supposed to fund health care reform.

If the important thing were truely the giving, then changing the percentage of charitable donations people who earn over $250,000 per year can deduct from 35% to 28% wouldn't decrease their giving at all.

But apparently the important thing for these folks isn't the giving, it's indeed the amount of tax deduction one gets from giving.

Don't worry, this one won't pass in the fall.

So we are going to in effect take money from charity to pay for health care reform?

The truly important thing is to fund the charities, reasoning behind it should be irrelevant. Only the naive would believe that this wouldn't reduce the amount of money going to charity.

timmgirvan · #17 03-25-2009, 05:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Only the sickness called liberalism would believe it is the "right thing" to intentionally injure charities in order to "stick it to the rich". Great time to decrease incentive for giving. The important thing is the giving, not the reasoning behind the giving.

....and who said liberalism isn't a mental illness?