Taxes and Charity

[Magox]

So Mitt released his Taxes today.... Basically over the past 2 years, hes earned approximately $42 Million dollars, in which he has paid right around $6.2M in taxes and has given about $7M in charity, out of that $7M around half of that was given to his church.

 

So, when you total up the figures, a little over 16% was given to charitable causes and a little over 14.5% to the U.S government.

 

 

In contrast,

 

President Barack Obama and his wife Michelle paid nearly $1.8 million in federal taxes on adjusted gross income of over $5.5 million in 2009, and gave $329,100 to charity.

 

So if you figure out the percentages, the Obamas gave about 6% to charitable causes.

 

 

So whats the point of the thread?

 

What is the current battlecry of the left? Isn't it about "Social Justice", the inequalities of the incomes? Isn't that the crux of it all? So, the attack on Mitt will be that he favors the rich, that he is callous and that he doesn't care about "social justice".

 

However, he pays more than 270% more of his annual income to charitable causes than the Obamas, which of course MUCH MUCH more of this money goes towards addressing the issue of "Social Injustice" than federal taxes could ever achieve. Let me repeat that again, he pays more than 270% of his annual income to charitable causes than the one who cries about social injustice.

 

Which means that his actions are voluntary. Let me repeat again, VOLUNTARY! And this isn't just Mitt, but conservatives by in large follow this mantra, which is to voluntarily give charitable contributions more so than those who preach it.

 

These are facts, you lemmings can try to argue it all day long and attempt to justify your position, but at the end of the day, these are the facts and there is no getting around them, at least not rationally.

Edited January 24, 2012 by Magox

[/dev/null]

Yeah but the Government knows how to spend it better. So instead of giving it to Charity he should have just given it to the Government to disburse to Charities approved by The State and The People's Party.

[ieatcrayonz]

So Mitt release his taxes today.... Basically over the past 2 years, hes earned approximately $42 Million dollars, in which he has paid right around $6.2M in taxes and has given about $7M in charity, out of that $7M around half of that was given to his church.

 

So, when you total up the figures, a little over 16% was given to charitable causes and a little over 14.5% to the U.S government.

 

 

In contrast,

 

President Barack Obama and his wife Michelle paid nearly $1.8 million in Federal taxes on adjusted gross income of over $5.5 million in 2009, and gave $329,100 to charity.

 

So if you figure out the percentages, the Obamas gave about 6% to charitable causes.

 

 

So whats the point of the thread?

 

What is the current battlecry of the left? Isn't it about "Social Justice", the inequalities of the incomes? Isn't that the crux of it all? So, the attack on Mitt will be that he favors the rich, that he is callous and that he doesn't care about "social justice".

 

However, he pays more than 270% more of his annual income to charitable causes than the Obamas, which of course MUCH MUCH more of this money goes towards addressing the issue of "Social Injustice" than federal taxes could ever achieve. Let me repeat that again, he pays more than 270% of his annual income to charitable causes than the one who cries about social injustice.

 

Which means that his actions are voluntary. Let me repeat again, VOLUNTARY! And this isn't just Mitt, but conservatives by in large follow this mantra, which is to voluntarily give charitable contributions more so than those who preach it.

 

These are facts, you lemmings can try to argue it all day long and attempt to justify your position, but at the end of the day, these are the facts and there is no getting around them, at least not rationally.

 

It is easier to give a higher percentage when you make more. Obama only made $5M. He did not have a lot of liquidity for charity. Even though $42M is a little weak, it allows for a much better % than $5M.

[B-Large]

I think the Morman Church requires no less than 15% of your gross income. I heard that somewhere, I can't corroborate if that is true. We had a Mormon CEO for a while, and I seem to remember he remarked about the Church getting a chunk, of course he said this in jest.

[Magox]

It is easier to give a higher percentage when you make more. Obama only made $5M. He did not have a lot of liquidity for charity. Even though $42M is a little weak, it allows for a much better % than $5M.

What's hilarious about this is, is that this will actually make sense to some people.

[birdog1960]

So Mitt release his taxes today.... Basically over the past 2 years, hes earned approximately $42 Million dollars, in which he has paid right around $6.2M in taxes and has given about $7M in charity, out of that $7M around half of that was given to his church.

 

So, when you total up the figures, a little over 16% was given to charitable causes and a little over 14.5% to the U.S government.

 

 

In contrast,

 

President Barack Obama and his wife Michelle paid nearly $1.8 million in Federal taxes on adjusted gross income of over $5.5 million in 2009, and gave $329,100 to charity.

 

So if you figure out the percentages, the Obamas gave about 6% to charitable causes.

 

 

So whats the point of the thread?

 

What is the current battlecry of the left? Isn't it about "Social Justice", the inequalities of the incomes? Isn't that the crux of it all? So, the attack on Mitt will be that he favors the rich, that he is callous and that he doesn't care about "social justice".

 

However, he pays more than 270% more of his annual income to charitable causes than the Obamas, which of course MUCH MUCH more of this money goes towards addressing the issue of "Social Injustice" than federal taxes could ever achieve. Let me repeat that again, he pays more than 270% of his annual income to charitable causes than the one who cries about social injustice.

 

Which means that his actions are voluntary. Let me repeat again, VOLUNTARY! And this isn't just Mitt, but conservatives by in large follow this mantra, which is to voluntarily give charitable contributions more so than those who preach it.

 

These are facts, you lemmings can try to argue it all day long and attempt to justify your position, but at the end of the day, these are the facts and there is no getting around them, at least not rationally.

don't have to get around them. you made the argument for us. his charitable giving is voluntary. what is done with that money is not controlled directly or indirectly by voters. what gets done with that money is often dependent on conditions set by the particular charity. for instance, mormons history on race relations is far from stellar. would they be less likely to help down and out minorities than down and out whites? i don't know about now but that was certainly the case a century ago. ever heard of rice bowl conversion? yup, its used in third world countries by groups as diverse as muslim extremists to christian fundamentalists. now, he has every right to voluntarily contribute to any or all such organizations. but it should be an obligation to contribute a percentage of his income equal or greater to those with far less in the way of resources to advance and fund the common goals of our nation prioritized by our elected govt officials. charitable giving should in no way mitigate that obligation.

[3rdnlng]

I think the Morman Church requires no less than 15% of your gross income. I heard that somewhere, I can't corroborate if that is true. We had a Mormon CEO for a while, and I seem to remember he remarked about the Church getting a chunk, of course he said this in jest.

 

 

They suggest 10%.

[IDBillzFan]

What I take away from this is that Warren Buffet's secretary pays a higher tax rate than the President.

 

That chick needs a better accountant.

[B-Large]

What I take away from this is that Warren Buffet's secretary pays a higher tax rate than the President.

 

That chick needs a better accountant.

 

Most Americans will not dole out $300- $400 for an accountant.... lol..... my accountant who rails me every year ALWAYS give me advice, based on tax laws, that lower my tax liability.

 

Most Americans would die for a bigger paycheck.... nothing could be more middle class than that very notion.....

[Magox]

I think the Morman Church requires no less than 15% of your gross income. I heard that somewhere, I can't corroborate if that is true. We had a Mormon CEO for a while, and I seem to remember he remarked about the Church getting a chunk, of course he said this in jest.

Look up the word "tithing"

 

 

What % are Catholics suggested to give?

 

 

 

In the decade from 1998-2007, Joe and Jill Biden paid $369 a year to charitable contributions. Isn't he Catholic? The point is that the argument from the left is that they are the champions of solving the issues of Social Injustice, however COnservatives are much more willing to voluntarily and TANGIBLY solve these problems than those who verbally make the case.

 

don't have to get around them. you made the argument for us. his charitable giving is voluntary. what is done with that money is not controlled directly or indirectly by voters. what gets done with that money is often dependent on conditions set by the particular charity. for instance, mormons history on race relations is far from stellar. would they be less likely to help down and out minorities than down and out whites? i don't know about now but that was certainly the case a century ago. ever heard of rice bowl conversion? yup, its used in third world countries by groups as diverse as muslim extremists to christian fundamentalists. now, he has every right to voluntarily contribute to any or all such organizations. but it should be an obligation to contribute a percentage of his income equal or greater to those with far less in the way of resources to advance and fund the common goals of our nation prioritized by our elected govt officials. charitable giving should in no way mitigate that obligation.

Wow! not only are you a hypcocrite but you are a bigot.

 

(Man, I just pulled that line of attack straight out of the liberal handbook, felt good )

Edited January 24, 2012 by Magox

[birdog1960]

Look up the word "tithing"

 

 

What % are Catholics suggested to give?

 

 

 

In the decade from 1998-2007, Joe and Jill Biden paid $369 a year to charitable contributions. Isn't he Catholic? The point is that the argument from the left is that they are the champions of solving the issues of Social Injustice, however COnservatives are much more willing to voluntarily and TANGIBLY solve these problems than those who verbally make the case.

 

 

Wow! not only are you a hypcocrite but you are a bigot.

so you're making this conclusion on the basis of romney vs biden and obama? hardly a large enough sample to conclude that. got any more comprehensive data?

[Magox]

so you're making this conclusion on the basis of romney vs biden and obama? hardly a large enough sample to conclude that. got any more comprehensive data?

Of course I do, I've provided it on this board a few times.. Try this, google up who contributes more to charities, Conservatives or Liberals

 

 

The reason why I thought it was relevant to bring up a small sample scale was because ummmmmm

 

because they are the two at the top of the ticket crying social injustice? Yeah, I'd say it's relevant.

[B-Large]

Look up the word "tithing"

 

 

What % are Catholics suggested to give?

 

 

 

In the decade from 1998-2007, Joe and Jill Biden paid $369 a year to charitable contributions. Isn't he Catholic? The point is that the argument from the left is that they are the champions of solving the issues of Social Injustice, however COnservatives are much more willing to voluntarily and TANGIBLY solve these problems than those who verbally make the case.

 

I know the worth tithing... people in Catholic Churches are asked to give what they can, at least my upbringing that was the case.

 

You probably believe that to be true, and while that fits your case on this message board, I highly doubt that is an established fact. I think there are immenseily charitable people who come from many ideologies, and frankly, the R or D just happens to be assigned. Our biggest Donor, who happens to be Libertarian, has donated upwards to 150M to build our hospital buildings.... but we also have some very wealthy Democrat/Liberals who have supported Chairs, Depatments and Building well into the 100M range, in aggregate.

 

These people feel they can make a difference in the lives of many through direct charitable causes.... other feel that a central governing power is the best route for that effort... I don't think any way is right or wrong because the intent to help is good... I happen to personally believe local, direct assitance to from people who know the needs of their community best serves that need.... if any asssitance is offer by Government, it should be at the State level at the highest, ideally local or city.

[birdog1960]

Look up the word "tithing"

 

 

What % are Catholics suggested to give?

 

 

 

In the decade from 1998-2007, Joe and Jill Biden paid $369 a year to charitable contributions. Isn't he Catholic? The point is that the argument from the left is that they are the champions of solving the issues of Social Injustice, however COnservatives are much more willing to voluntarily and TANGIBLY solve these problems than those who verbally make the case.

 

 

Wow! not only are you a hypcocrite but you are a bigot.

 

(Man, I just pulled that line of attack straight out of the liberal handbook, felt good )

until 1978, no black man of african descent was allowed priesthood in the mormon church. read brigham young's writings on this if you don't believe me. does one need to be a bigot to point this fact out?

[3rdnlng]

don't have to get around them. you made the argument for us. his charitable giving is voluntary. what is done with that money is not controlled directly or indirectly by voters. what gets done with that money is often dependent on conditions set by the particular charity. for instance, mormons history on race relations is far from stellar. would they be less likely to help down and out minorities than down and out whites? i don't know about now but that was certainly the case a century ago. ever heard of rice bowl conversion? yup, its used in third world countries by groups as diverse as muslim extremists to christian fundamentalists. now, he has every right to voluntarily contribute to any or all such organizations. but it should be an obligation to contribute a percentage of his income equal or greater to those with far less in the way of resources to advance and fund the common goals of our nation prioritized by our elected govt officials. charitable giving should in no way mitigate that obligation.

 

So, the guy pays the taxes that he is supposed to and gives even more to charity and all you can come up with is a criticism of the Mormon Church. Also that he should pay a higher percentage of his income equal to those with far less to fund the common goals of our nation prioritized by our elected government officials? Can you quantify "far less"? Should the capital gains rate be raised? If so, to what?

[Magox]

I know the worth tithing... people in Catholic Churches are asked to give what they can, at least my upbringing that was the case.

 

You probably believe that to be true, and while that fits your case on this message board, I highly doubt that is an established fact. I think there are immenseily charitable people who come from many ideologies, and frankly, the R or D just happens to be assigned. Our biggest Donor, who happens to be Libertarian, has donated upwards to 150M to build our hospital buildings.... but we also have some very wealthy Democrat/Liberals who have supported Chairs, Depatments and Building well into the 100M range, in aggregate.

 

These people feel they can make a difference in the lives of many through direct charitable causes.... other feel that a central governing power is the best route for that effort... I don't think any way is right or wrong because the intent to help is good... I happen to personally believe local, direct assitance to from people who know the needs of their community best serves that need.... if any asssitance is offer by Government, it should be at the State level at the highest, ideally local or city.

AGAIN!

 

 

In which I've said at least a couple times "The Point..."

 

 

The point of the whole thread which is going right over not just your head but others, is that the lefts attempt to stake the claim of champions of fighting for the causes of social injustices are hypocritical at best, when it comes right down to it, Conservatives are equal if not more willing to actually tangibly further this cause.

 

When ABC had a story on Mitt's charitable contributions, they characterized some of his donations as "sending" money to his church rather than "giving". An obvious veiled attempt at minimizing his contributions, almost as if it were law. Sort of like what you did with the initial post you had in this thread, or Birdogs pathetic attempt do demean and cast Mormonism as a racially charged and discriminatory religion.

[birdog1960]

So, the guy pays the taxes that he is supposed to and gives even more to charity and all you can come up with is a criticism of the Mormon Church. Also that he should pay a higher percentage of his income equal to those with far less to fund the common goals of our nation prioritized by our elected government officials? Can you quantify "far less"? Should the capital gains rate be raised? If so, to what?

the reference to mormonism was meant to illustrate that there are often conditions or strings attached to charitable giving. if the country solely relied on charitable giving for it's societal safety net, it's likely some groups felt less desreving or desirable for whatever reason would be less supported.

 

yes, i think the capital gains tax needs to be increased or alternatively the tax system fundamentally changes so that an effective progressive tax structure is in palce. i'll leave the details in how to get there to those more versed in such issues.

[Magox]

until 1978, no black man of african descent was allowed priesthood in the mormon church. read brigham young's writings on this if you don't believe me. does one need to be a bigot to point this fact out?

So what you are saying is that Mormons are still discriminating against blacks? And that Mitt Romney and other Mormons are only willing to donate money if and only if money is directed towards causes that help white people? We are talking about current topics right? If you want to use history as some sort of justification as your point, than i can say the democratic party was the one who supported slavery.

 

So I guess that means that your party is still the party of racists?

 

Of course not.

 

That would be as ridiculous as the argument that you were just trying to attempt.

[RI Bills Fan]

AGAIN!

 

 

In which I've said at least a couple times "The Point..."

 

 

 

So then your point ISN'T to put the best possible spin of this story out for your chosen candidate?

 

AND it ISN'T to point out why you believe that conservatives are much more wonderful than those nasty, dispicable, liberals.

 

And it ISN'T Obama BAD; Romney GOOD!

 

Yep, you sure fooled me.

[Magox]

So then your point ISN'T to put the best possible spin of this story out for your chosen candidate?

 

AND it ISN'T to point out why you believe that conservatives are much more wonderful than those nasty, dispicable, liberals.

 

And it ISN'T Obama BAD; Romney GOOD!

 

Yep, you sure fooled me.

Not my fault that you are thick-headed.

 

psss pssss

 

 

It's called context.