Make your own Hussein speech.

[Hawk]

Still doesn't cover the fact I'm stuck with having to cover other people's desire to give money to greedy organizations that call themselves charities.

Things cost money, even for the government. They use my money to pay for part of it. Someone gives 1/5th of their share of it away and takes the deduction. I have to give 1/5 of mine away or more of the things the government bought are paid for from my share than the someone with the deduction.

Lets say you have three people paying taxes. Two take a deduction, one doesn't because he think they are mostly f'ed up money grabs that can't do any real good because of the greed of the people who run it.

Tax is 36% with a 3% deduction allowance.

we each make $100 and pay $36 tax, 36*3=108-6(deductions)=$102

Now if the government spends that $102 on something, who paid the most for it? And in that way, I'm supporting their charity by taking a larger part of the bill so they can have their name on a little brass strip in some hallway, while the people who run it soak up large salaries for doing nothing good...

Just like you don't want to have any firearms responsibility forced on you, I don't want to be forced to give to charity.

If people are giving to charity because of a tax credit, instead of actually believing in it, they should be ashamed of themselves. If they truly believe in it, they will give no matter what, that's the way it should be. I shouldn't have to subsidize their religous guilt, sins, or whatever else they feel when they don't give because it actually costs them money...

If they don't want to feel that way, they need to let go of their greed.


You wouldn't like my idea of welfare, I'm not going there.

Not disagreeing or agreeing. Just pointing out your mathematical flaw, which is a major one.

If three people make $100 and two pay 36% those two pay $36 each.

The third person contributes 6% of his income (in this case $6.00) to charity. [Here's where people get deductions wrong] He pays 36% tax on the remainder of his income, which is $94. He pays $33.84 in taxes.

So understand that the charitable guy is paying a total of $39.84 while the other two are paying $36. If this charity happens to be, say, Sister's Soup Kitchen, the guy did YOU a service. In that your taxes won't have to pay to feed those at the soup kitchen.

So don't think that a charitable deduction is IN ANY WAY EQUAL to someone paying that same amount LESS in taxes !

This brings your total to $105.84. The government is left with $2.16 less because of the $6.00 deduction. Not the $102 you reported.

I know, you're still against the deduction. I am not trying to convince you otherwise. Only trying to help you to understand a deduction.

[JackANSI]

no matter the amount I'm still stuck paying more % for the $102 dollar widget the government bought just becuase someone wanted to give to a charity (and this is where my main gripe would be) that might make someone who needs something to eat sit through a sermon or such to get it.

[songsmith]

Flat percentage tax, or no tax at all. FTW.

Yep, but with a standard deduction for each individual/dependent, so that poverty level income is excluded. No other deductions, except possibly charitable contributions.

i like the sound of that.

Me, too, except the charitable deductions should be limited... too many tax shelters now. Otherwise we're all finding common ground.--->JMS

[Banned]

If Obama had not spent that money our economy would have collapsed and we would be in a depression instead of a recession.

Could you prove that?

[lonewolf]

If Obama had not spent that money our economy would have collapsed and we would be in a depression instead of a recession. Bush left him with no other choice.

If he had not spent that money and we were in a 1930s type depression, would you be happier ?

Spent what money? Do you mean the porkulus bill?

Only about 10% has been spent so far. What's that, $80 billion? That doesn't even scratch the surface of the economy. It did NOTHING.

The liquidity crisis was stabilized and the threat of depression was averted before Obama even took office. The credit for that, as unpopular as it was, goes to Ben Bernanke & Henry Paulson. Of course, one could argue that they did much to get us into the mess in the 1st place.

I'll tell you what effect Obama had on the economy. They ramrodded the porkulus bill and the hyper-overblown budget thru and when the free markets saw this and the other pending legislation like cap and trade and the health insurance bill, the markets tanked. Happily (and 90% in cash), I bought a lifetime supply of bond ETFs paying 20% interest at all time lows.

Thanks Barry!

As C&T & Healthcare was introduced, instead of a normal spike rebound, the markets took a dead cat bounce. I made the mistake of thinking that everything Obama wanted was going to pass. Because of this, I thought the market would just drift thru the summer and retest the lows this fall...however...

When it became apparent that Obama's agenda would be defeated, the financial markets finally spiked and will continue to do OK--at least until we see a return of the possibility that more legislative monstrosities will be passed.

We will be fine as long as the Obama agenda stays in check. At least short term...however...

I almost forgot. The exploding budget and corresponding debt? Their effects come later...