U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 11-01-2008, 11:25 AM
 
Location: Orlando, Florida
43,858 posts, read 43,564,164 times
Reputation: 58603

Advertisements

This post isn't about a 'holier than thou' attitude, it is only a thought.
I am a Christian who financially supports my church, missions abroad and our local mission outreach. The local mission includes a food bank, clothes and cash assistance not just for members of our church....but for anyone in need.

We are not the only church who participates in this sort of local charity work. Catholic Charities are just phenomenal. There are several other faith based local missions to our city who assist thousands of people annually.

That being said.....could it be that many conservative Christians who already live a life of understanding "If you have two coats - give one away" since we learn that through reading our Bible, that we don't see the need for having to legislate "spreading the wealth"? Therefore, the whole idea seems so preposterous to us because we are already giving all that we possibly can and are happy to do so.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-01-2008, 11:57 AM
 
19,183 posts, read 27,737,865 times
Reputation: 4000
Atheists support the same charitable institutions that you do, as do members of virtually every non-Christian religion out there. We are all heavily subsidized in doing so (the rich generally moreso than the less well to do) through tax deductions, the organizations themselves are in many way relieved of tax burdens and obligations, and the amount of resources raised is still utterly swamped by the dimensions of existing human need. These dimensions are at the moment, and will be for the immediate future, expanding. There is no way to address the problem through voluntary means alone. This is nothing new. It is the reason that a social welfare safety net was constructed to begin with. There is simply no way to deal with the scope of the problem without governmental involvement. Can't happen, and almost any local charity operator will tell you so. For those who are concerned -- as you seem to be -- the question is not whether tax-funded relief will exist, but how it might best and most effectively be organized and operated...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-01-2008, 01:21 PM
 
Location: Orlando, Florida
43,858 posts, read 43,564,164 times
Reputation: 58603
Quote:
Originally Posted by saganista View Post
Atheists support the same charitable institutions that you do, as do members of virtually every non-Christian religion out there.
Good point and thanks for bringing it out. I suppose I should have asked if people who support charities are less prone to support a spread the wealth frame of mine.

You are also right in that the needs right now are swamping the welfare system. I read in the paper yesterday where here in Orlando, the Food Stamp program was backed up 75 days....even though our state law requires a 30 day response. Some of our back up is due to the high immigration, but we also have a great many people who are simply out or work. I just don't think ANYONE should be hungry in America and I can't understand how any community can sit back and just assume the government is going to meet all those needs.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-01-2008, 01:23 PM
 
Location: NY
1,416 posts, read 4,898,658 times
Reputation: 588
I'm having trouble understanding where the link is between faith-based charities and Obama's proposed revision of the current taxation system. IMO it was unfortunate that Obama used the phrase 'spread the wealth around' because it was immediately latched onto by the opposition and spun into something serviceable to their own side.

Faith-based charities do give financial and other support to those in need, from voluntary contributions, and I wholeheartedly agree that such efforts are needed and appreciated. However AFAIK they are directed at people who are VERY MUCH in need of help... those in the direst circumstances. We already also have government programs in place to help such people (public assistance programs, which my generation called Welfare but I guess that's not politically correct anymore; Medicaid, food stamps and so forth). But from what I understand about Obama's proposed tax policies, the increased tax income from those making 250K and over would be 'spread around' to ALL income brackets less than about 100K/yr, not just to the neediest. If the proposal were to have the increased income from high earners targeted specifically to public assistance programs only, or to very low-income earners only, then I would agree with the OP that it would indeed be 'legislated charitable giving' .... but since that's not the scenario proposed, I'm having trouble seeing a connection between the two.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-01-2008, 02:12 PM
 
Location: Montrose, CA
3,031 posts, read 7,863,957 times
Reputation: 1925
Quote:
Originally Posted by GloryB View Post
Good point and thanks for bringing it out. I suppose I should have asked if people who support charities are less prone to support a spread the wealth frame of mine.
Perhaps, but I can only go by my own personal experiences. I tend NOT to support outright charities. In other words, if I am going to donate to a charitable organization, it will be one that actually assists someone in bettering their own life, not one that merely hands out freebies (so to speak). I also do not donate to any organization that is trying to further some sort of religious agenda as a part of their charity. I don't think the act of helping people should have the strings of religion attached to it.

As far as spreading the wealth goes, I'm against it. There's no reason in this country that someone can't take responsibility for themselves and better themselves if they really want to. We have so much handed to us here, and so many opportunities that there is almost never an excuse for failure.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-01-2008, 02:18 PM
 
Location: Fredericksburg, Va
5,119 posts, read 12,716,950 times
Reputation: 7210
"Spreading the wealth" only makes everyone poorer--when you spread things out--it get thinner and thinner. What we want to do is GROW the wealth! Just because someone has more than you, doesn't mean they TOOK from you! Everyone should have the opportunity to make as much as they want/need.
Charity shouldn't be legislated. If you want to GIVE away anything you own, that's your perrogitive, but no one should HAVE to!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-01-2008, 03:05 PM
 
Location: US
3,072 posts, read 3,335,346 times
Reputation: 1620
Part of the problem is that no one really knows what he intends to do with the increased taxes to spread the wealth around, particularly with a completely Democratic controlled Congress if that event occurs. The families' income for whom he intends to do away with the Bush tax cuts keep getting lower and lower--from $250,000 all the way down to $87,000, I've heard, despite what his web site says.

He also intends for taxpayers to fund abortions when he passes the Freedom of Choice Act. He wants the government to choose who will get a college scholarship. The Democrats are bringing in Theresa Ghilarducci, an economics professor with the New School for Social Research in New York who has long advocated doing away with the 401(k) plan, or at least gutting it, to do away with the $80 billion given to Americans in tax breaks and allowing them to put their 401(k) in a Government Retirement Account. Employers would cease to contribute to your 401(k) as many do now. In every event, Americans would be required to put 5% of their income into this GRA, would receive a 3% return (which is terrible) and, I have read your heirs will only get half the money you invested upon your death. Even Obama's alleged supporter, Warren Buffett, thinks this is insane.

When questioned about this by voters, Biden and Obama have said that to not want to do this is "unpatrotic" and "selfish." Do you think you give your money to someone in need better than the government?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-01-2008, 03:21 PM
 
Location: Right where I want to be.
4,507 posts, read 7,824,676 times
Reputation: 3304
Quote:
Originally Posted by GloryB View Post
I suppose I should have asked if people who support charities are less prone to support a spread the wealth frame of mine.
I think this answers your question.

George Will :: Townhall.com :: Conservatives Really Are More Compassionate

Quote:
-- People who reject the idea that "government has a responsibility to reduce income inequality" give an average of four times more than people who accept that proposition.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-01-2008, 03:43 PM
 
274 posts, read 545,927 times
Reputation: 89
Well, on average aren't conservatives wealthier? If you have more money, you would have more to give.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-01-2008, 03:50 PM
 
Location: Right where I want to be.
4,507 posts, read 7,824,676 times
Reputation: 3304
Quote:
Originally Posted by AngelEyez02403 View Post
Well, on average aren't conservatives wealthier? If you have more money, you would have more to give.
Wrong...read the article!!

http://townhall.com/columnists/Georg..._compassionate
Quote:
-- 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).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top