How does this make sense?

[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.

[Riot]

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]

Thank you.

[SOREHOOF]

Oops...I forgot. 95% of us are getting a tax break.

[GBBob]

There are plenty of "rich" who wouldn't donate a penney of their money to charity no matter what the deduction...But I bet the majority of the 39% bracket that donate will continue to no matter what the loss of deductions might be. You think Bill Gates does what he does for the deduction?

[Riot]

Originally Posted by GBBob

There are plenty of "rich" who wouldn't donate a penney of their money to charity no matter what the deduction...But I bet the majority of the 39% bracket that donate will continue to no matter what the loss of deductions might be. You think Bill Gates does what he does for the deduction?

I think not at all for Bill, but apparently for 1.7 to 3.5% it's a deal-breaker

My concern is that I don't think this is an appropriate place to get money for healthcare reforms, although I support some aggressive looking at and reworking of our healthcare system.

On a similar subject, apparently the Dems took 100 billion out of Obama's budget today (which matches what the Senate is doing to it)

Headlines today: stocks rising, as economic data tops forcasts. Durable good orders rising (very good news). Housing purchases of used homes up in February. February new home sales up. Mortgage applications up.

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by GBBob

There are plenty of "rich" who wouldn't donate a penney of their money to charity no matter what the deduction...But I bet the majority of the 39% bracket that donate will continue to no matter what the loss of deductions might be. You think Bill Gates does what he does for the deduction?

"It's an important part of tax planning" Riot 3/25/09

Seriously to me it has nothing to do with being fair and everything to do with getting their hands on yet more money. Damn if they have to rob charities to do so. I also believe Gates deducted his charitable donations AND is wealthy enough to create his own charities with his wife manning the register. Still far better than the likes of Leon Panetta who formed the Leon & Sylvia Panetta Institute for Public Policy at Cal U and now gets paid by the school?

[Riot]

"It's an important part of tax planning" Riot 3/25/09

Yeah, Dell, trusts, bequests, charitable donations are indeed an important part of annual tax planning. You seriously think it is not?

Seriously to me it has nothing to do with being fair and everything to do with getting their hands on yet more money. Damn if they have to rob charities to do so.

Again, this is where Obama wants to get some of the money to support healthcare reforms he's targeted. I'm glad that so far it appears most of the House and Senate disagree with getting it from here, too, even though the worse case estimates so far are that it will marginally affect charitable donations.

[GBBob]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

"It's an important part of tax planning" Riot 3/25/09

Seriously to me it has nothing to do with being fair and everything to do with getting their hands on yet more money. Damn if they have to rob charities to do so. I also believe Gates deducted his charitable donations AND is wealthy enough to create his own charities with his wife manning the register. Still far better than the likes of Leon Panetta who formed the Leon & Sylvia Panetta Institute for Public Policy at Cal U and now gets paid by the school?

As a general statement, I think it's fair to say that bleeding heart libtards contribute and always have contributed more to charities than conservatives ....tax breaks or no tax breaks. Unless the NRA is considered a charity..

[dellinger63]

Church and Religious Charities of course do not count.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by GBBob

As a general statement, I think it's fair to say that bleeding heart libtards contribute and always have contributed more to charities than conservatives ....tax breaks or no tax breaks. Unless the NRA is considered a charity..

That is a myth perpertrated by bleeding hearts.

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by GBBob

As a general statement, I think it's fair to say that bleeding heart libtards contribute and always have contributed more to charities than conservatives ....tax breaks or no tax breaks. Unless the NRA is considered a charity..

Bob you didn't grow up with any conservative neighbors? What's becoming more and more common in this new administration another fact-check. And this is a doozy:

Brooks, a registered independent, is, as a reviewer of his book said, a social scientist who has been mugged by data. They include these findings:

-- Although liberal families' incomes average 6 percent higher than those of conservative families, conservative-headed households give, on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed household ($1,600 per year vs. $1,227).

-- Conservatives also donate more time and give more blood.

-- Residents of the states that voted for John Kerry in 2004 gave smaller percentages of their incomes to charity than did residents of states that voted for George Bush.

-- Bush carried 24 of the 25 states where charitable giving was above average.

-- In the 10 reddest states, in which Bush got more than 60 percent majorities, the average percentage of personal income donated to charity was 3.5. Residents of the bluest states, which gave Bush less than 40 percent, donated just 1.9 percent.

And again Al Gore 0.2 percent

http://townhall.com/columnists/Georg...sionate?page=1

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by GBBob

There are plenty of "rich" who wouldn't donate a penney of their money to charity no matter what the deduction...But I bet the majority of the 39% bracket that donate will continue to no matter what the loss of deductions might be. You think Bill Gates does what he does for the deduction?

That is not the point. The fact that charities are and will struggle with an economic downturn makes this idea a loser. Remember that everyone earning over $250k is now rich so throwing Bill Gates out there is a bit much. You need to come back to the US!

And while some will continue to donate at their current levels some of the not so rich rich people will cut their chartiable giving as to not have to go deeper in their pockets out of necessity of follow ing a budget or simply not having the extra money. In the end this cannot help charity and will hurt them. How is that a good thing?

You know if you disagree with a demoractic proposal we wont turn your name over to Pelosi and crew ....

[GBBob]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

That is not the point. The fact that charities are and will struggle with an economic downturn makes this idea a loser. Remember that everyone earning over $250k is now rich so throwing Bill Gates out there is a bit much. You need to come back to the US!

And while some will continue to donate at their current levels some of the not so rich rich people will cut their chartiable giving as to not have to go deeper in their pockets out of necessity of follow ing a budget or simply not having the extra money. In the end this cannot help charity and will hurt them. How is that a good thing?

You know if you disagree with a demoractic proposal we wont turn your name over to Pelosi and crew ....

You guys and your cute side comments...just can't help yourself..

yeah...it's a down economy so charities will suffer. I think the end result of the direction we are going will result in more money for people to donate then if the staus quo remained. It's just how you look at this and everything else...we are both pounding our heads against the wall because there is no agreeing at this point.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by GBBob

You guys and your cute side comments...just can't help yourself..

yeah...it's a down economy so charities will suffer. I think the end result of the direction we are going will result in more money for people to donate then if the staus quo remained. It's just how you look at this and everything else...we are both pounding our heads against the wall because there is no agreeing at this point.

How does this and other tax increases lead to more money being given? I would love to hear your reasoning?

[Riot]

Originally Posted by SOREHOOF

Thank you.

You're welcome