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.
So, put limits on the amount of funding to private sector charity in the business of helping folks; government is much better able to decide where to spend your money. Government spending for charity must be the answer or folks might think the private sector does it better.
Actually, I think you are playing with two or three different directions here.
It isn't a plot that says the government does it better.
Truth be known, the government actually does it better because the government can't pick and choose. And I wish that is what the article was going for, but it doesn't. In fact, the article doesn't include the religious-affiliated charities that receive my tax dollars and are lacking in the accountability department. Nor, am I reading this as a buying votes with tax dollars.
So, put limits on the amount of funding to private sector charity in the business of helping folks; government is much better able to decide where to spend your money. Government spending for charity must be the answer or folks might think the private sector does it better.
Otherwise known as buying votes with tax dollars.
What do ya'll think?
Dano
Of course there will be an exemption for the very reverend Wright's church, yes?
The governamnt does it better? It does it on political basis. Bil Clinton recently gave a speech on TV about this in which he pointed out that 80% of poverty in this country is in two area of the conty that are rural. But 80% ogf government assistance goes to 20% that is in urban cities. The two raural areas get 20% . That is because the urban areas have the political power . The politics of poverty. Is also what the pork in govenment is all about. Anyone who believes that government is neutral needs to lift the blinders from their eyes.
It helps to actually read the article. Here is a snippet:
President Obama has proposed limiting to 28 percent the tax break couples earning more than $250,000 (individuals $200,000) can get for each dollar of itemized deductions, including charitable donations, starting in 2011. People in the highest tax brackets can now get 33 percent or 35 percent.
Many nonprofit leaders have criticized the proposal on the grounds that it would dampen giving, harming charities that are already under strain from the economic downturn. Others, however, support it because the tax revenue would be used to bring down health-care costs, which they say would benefit both charities and the people they serve.
Liberals worship government as their god. To them, it is an all knowing, all seeing, giver of life and administer of justice. They gladly tithe their first fruits to gov't and enforce through the sword any unbeliever who does not worship at their altar. You can see by the posts here and in this forum, they look to government to be their source of providence, their happiness, and their avenger. They worship at its feet with unquestioning awe. Liberals, who says they are godless.
Actually, I think you are playing with two or three different directions here.
It isn't a plot that says the government does it better.
Truth be known, the government actually does it better because the government can't pick and choose. And I wish that is what the article was going for, but it doesn't. In fact, the article doesn't include the religious-affiliated charities that receive my tax dollars and are lacking in the accountability department. Nor, am I reading this as a buying votes with tax dollars.
and I totally disagree: I have a right to decide, as every American does, what charities I want to support. The government doesn't always know better, how many do they successfully get off the dole? Not many. I don't care if it is the check I write to church each week, the candidate I support, the food bank I donate hours each week to or the Animal shelter contibutions I make, it is my money. Of course this doesn't affect me, I fall way below the limit line, we almost fall into the "give me some help" catagory.
and I totally disagree: I have a right to decide, as every American does, what charities I want to support. The government doesn't always know better, how many do they successfully get off the dole? Not many. I don't care if it is the check I write to church each week, the candidate I support, the food bank I donate hours each week to or the Animal shelter contibutions I make, it is my money. Of course this doesn't affect me, I fall way below the limit line, we almost fall into the "give me some help" catagory.
Nita
The government isn't telling you which charities to support--they're just not going to give you a tax break far above your normal income tax rate to do it. This only impacts the top 1%--people making over $250,000.00/year.
I raise money (grants, special events, fundraising drives, capital campaigns) for charities for a living--I've been doing it for nearly 30 years, sometimes working directly for a non-profit, and now as a consultant/small business owner. It's a myth to think that the majority of charitable giving comes from the wealthy--middle class people give a much higher proportion of their income, and often higher dollars. I have mixed feelings on this--I don't think it's going to generate all that much additional revenue in tax dollars, just as I don't think it's going to make a huge difference in charitable giving.
So, put limits on the amount of funding to private sector charity in the business of helping folks; government is much better able to decide where to spend your money. Government spending for charity must be the answer or folks might think the private sector does it better.
Otherwise known as buying votes with tax dollars.
What do ya'll think?
Dano
The article says that it only affects those making $200,000/yr or more and then lowers the max deduction by 5-7%. so what? I don't think that it goes far enough. When you give to a so-called charitable org, there's no accountability that the $$ is going directly toward the needs and not the bank account of the charity administration, espec the rotten churches. I also question why taxpayers can get tax deductions for orgs that concentrate their aid in foreign lands and not in our own country where the need is so great.
Seems like just another 'redistribute the wealth' scheme. In addition to increasing the upper tax rates with the expiration of the Bush tax cuts, he'll then hit the wealthy with reduced deductions for charitable contributions. End result: Per Obama, more funds for healthcare. Actual result: less charitable donations.
Just because he "thinks" it's a good idea doesn't make it one.
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.
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.
