Obama's plan to reduce tax deductions for charitable giving seems, on the surface, a way to generate more tax income. What the hell, the rich (republicans) who are donating can still donate, they just won't be able to claim as much in tax deductions. But people don't donate for tax reasons, do they?
Well, the real agenda here is to eliminate the State's competition. Why should the private sector be providing services and help when the federal government could do this instead. Why should our citizens have the freedom to redirect some of their tax dollars towards charitable causes they believe in? Surely the State knows better how to help people.
Remove the charities and people will be more dependant on the feds. This is great, is it not?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
16 comments:
Thank God to because we're to stupid to know how to do anything. And As for those Damn rich(greedy) republicans well damn them all. Good post Sean, heres a question for all of the circle rat bloggers. Of all the senate and members of the house which party has the MOST millionaires ie: personal wealth?
It's friggin' hilarious how you guys sometimes try to portray one party over the other as the one with the peoples best interests at heart. Consider that in addition to six figure salaries all members of Congress receive:
Free Life Insurance
Generous Retirement plan for life
32 fully taxpayer reimbursed trips home a year
Discounts in Capital Hill tax free shops and restaurants.
$10 haircuts at congressional barbershop
Free reserved parking at Washington National
House Gym & Senate Baths
Free Income tax preparation
Free fresh cut flowers from the Botanic gardens
Automatic annual cost of living salary adjustment
With entitlements like this how are these people supposed to be able to relate to the average schmuck that's living month to month?
And all for such life altering feats of legislation such as $50 million for an indoor rain forest in Iowa or $500,000 for a teapot museum in North Carolina.
Consider for a moment three of the main players in last years presidential race. John McCain with an individual net worth of $29 million. Hillary Clinton $10 million, add husband Bill to the total and it's closer to $50 million. Barack Obama just over $1 million but fear not as he is climbing the ladder fast with book advances and whatnot.
Only the wealthy, or at least those connected to wealth, have any realistic chance of holding high office.
But hey just keep right on pointing the indignant and accusatory finger at _______(insert offending opposition party member here).
Like a puppet on a string.
Doug - I think we are not too far apart on some things. The entitlements these "princes for life" have given themselves is an outrage. Whether on the left or the right it is simply unjustifiable.
Over the top spending is not the sole realm of the Democrats. The Bush administration went on a wild spending spree with the prescription drug program - it is this spending that ultimately resulted in the power shift we saw in the last few years.
The real point here is - be very careful how muc power you allow the government to assume. You might like the party in power today, but they won't stay there forever. If the government has power to control, say, the free press and you like it today - how are you gonna like this tomorrow when it is the other party?
This is why I am in favor of a smaller government, with very limited powers on the federal level. This is why I am outraged at the federalization/socialization of our country by the Obama administration and the Democrat congress. I don't trust either party to manage these things.
I'm not crazy about any government in power. I don't trust them. I never have and probably never will.
I recognize that they are a necessary evil and perform functions that couldn't be effectively implemented by the average schmo.
But...power corrupts. And lives primarily to perpetuate it's own agenda.
It's unfortunate that due to entitlement spending that within within 30 years or so the Federal Government will have NO money left over for discretionary programs.
Unfortunate because that means that the Fed (whichever party is in power) will aggressively explore other means of facilitating their own survival.
Cutting Social Security and Medicaire. Increased taxes, or as they like to call it revenue enhancement. These are a lead pipe cinch. Paying the interest on an 8 trillion dollar debt. These are all contributing to the FUBAR which is the future of our national economy and for which both parties share in the blame.
There are hard choices to me made in the upcoming years and it's going to be sooner rather than later. And for those bottom feeders such as us remember...
shit rolls downhill.
Yes, Doug! Do you think that Mat, DRL, Dave and I are Republican groupies? No - I believe we are all railing against the prospect of a larger government (Dem or Rep). Forget about the parties - we need to go back to the roots of this country. Liberty, not tyranny.
Obviously Doug you didn't get the point I was trying to make. The liberal democrats are always railing against wealth and demanding that those with it should give more of it to them in the form of taxes to help out those that are less fortunate. But yet they have more of it than the other party. Thats all I was trying to say. Yes there are to many career millionaires in government. But which party has more of them? That was the question.
Which party has more of them or which party has a higher percentage?
Since there are currently more Democrats in both the House and Senate simple numbers would not tell the whole story.
It would be an interesting exit poll to see how many that don't pay federal income tax vote Democrat.
If by percentage Democrats have more wealth than Republicans then one could conclude they are more skilled at creating said wealth. Therefor, wouldn't it make sense to have the more successful people in charge? Which fund would you trust your money to - Warren Buffett's or Bernie Madoff's?
Thats my point rac. They demonize it and blame the wealthy greed for the countries woes but in reality that makes them a bigger part of the problem. Unless yor saying that wealthy Dems are honorable and wealthy Reps are evil. You made my point. Read my post about running for office. You rule dude. I nominate Doug to be your chief of staff.Hahaha
Hey, I'm all for making a buck. Some of the people I admire most are the ones who figured out how to do it and then did it well. At the same time, I also believe money should be made ethically, something I'm afraid many in business today seem to have forgotten.
To Sean's original post, why the hell should government subsidize charities thru tax deductions anyway? Isn't that just another form of state welfare? Tax exempt status is one thing but to indirectly receive government funding seems like a loophole we can afford to close.
If by percentage Democrats have more wealth than Republicans then one could conclude that Doug and rac are some rich Mo-Fos. Ain't nuthin wrong with that I guess. And Sean, you promised that we could be groupies.
Can't speak for Doug, but I'm only rich with BS.
RAC - does that include ACORN that should not receive federal funding?
Sean, I thought I was pretty clear. What I said was the government should not subsidize charities thru tax deductions. If you want to donate money to ACORN then good for you. However, I don't believe you should be able to write it off on your taxes and thereby increase everyone else's tax burden. You say want to reduce taxes? Then I say let's eliminate all the damn loopholes and have everyone pay the same thing. A simple flat tax would solve all this mess.
Post a Comment