Bernie Sanders proved my point for me

[CF DolFan]

I will say that the older I get the more I tend to agree with libertarians. I think it stems from the fact the more I see controlled by government the more I see things being screwed up and taken advantage of by both lazy people and politicians whose only purpose is to remain serving in government. I've seen it first hand. Many politicians really don't care one way or the other but choose a side based on how it will get them votes and then they flip flop when that changes. If things get too bad they use a scapegoat and toss innocent people aside to protect themselves.   

[Spider-Dan]

My problem is with these rich elite 1% wanting to share the wealth.  That's an easy stance to have when you're loaded.  When everyone is taxed to hell, they'll still be rich.

If it's such an easy position for rich people to take, why are so many of them spending so much money to defeat people who will raise their taxes any amount?  Why is Howard Schultz running for president?

Yes, people like Michael Dell, Charles Koch, and Sheldon Adelson will still be multi-millionaires if Warren gets into office and passes the policies she is promoting.  They don't care that they will still be ridiculously rich; they don't want to pay ANY extra taxes, and will happily spend $100M if it results in preventing a $10M increase in taxes.  It's not about the money, it's about the control.

Side note, look how much Harris made and what her Charitable donations were.  Pathetic.  Beto's is pretty sad too.

I guess neither one of them have a kid they are trying to buy a college admission for!  Or a think-tank to fund!

If charity is such an important measurement of civic duty, why don't we remove the tax exemption for anything past $100k and see how selfless those titans of the community really are?

[Fau Teixeira]

charity contributions shouldn't be tax deductible at all. charity is charity .. taxes are taxes .. they should have nothing to do with each other

you now what .. i'm gonna donate $1000 to habitat for humanity next month and take $1000 off of my rent check .. any guesses on how my landlord would see a rent deductible charitable contribution?

[CF DolFan]

charity contributions shouldn't be tax deductible at all. charity is charity .. taxes are taxes .. they should have nothing to do with each other

you now what .. i'm gonna donate $1000 to habitat for humanity next month and take $1000 off of my rent check .. any guesses on how my landlord would see a rent deductible charitable contribution?

It doesn't work anywhere close to that way and in fact ... personal deductions have basically been eliminated. Even in the past if I donated 15% of my $100,000 salary then I'd only have gotten a small percentage of the $15,000 off my taxes. It isn't like I get a $15,000 tax break.

[masterfins]

It doesn't work anywhere close to that way and in fact ... personal deductions have basically been eliminated. Even in the past if I donated 15% of my $100,000 salary then I'd only have gotten a small percentage of the $15,000 off my taxes. It isn't like I get a $15,000 tax break.

Correct.  For you, at best, you could potential save $3300 in federal taxes.  However, under the new tax law that took effect with this years' filings a majority of couples would receive zero benefit, because they no longer qualify for itemizing their tax deductions.

[CF DolFan]

Correct.  For you, at best, you could potential save $3300 in federal taxes.  However, under the new tax law that took effect with this years' filings a majority of couples would receive zero benefit, because they no longer qualify for itemizing their tax deductions.

The standard deductions were raised so we are still paying less taxes ... just in a different way. The only thing it actually changed ... and I would think you and Spider would like ... is that giving to non-profits has little to no effect on my tax bill.

[SCFinfan]

I said it in the past thread, charities are a crutch that prevents government from doing what it's supposed to do. I have no problem with not giving to charities, but instead voting to increase taxes. good on them.

are you therefore saying the people who have given 1.8 million plus to those burned black churches in LA are giving to a crutch that should done away with?

https://www.wltx.com/article/news/nation-world/after-notre-dame-viral-tweet-helps-raise-18-million-for-black-churches-burned-down-in-louisiana/101-c6c1f81d-556f-4fec-8949-b08bfc3e38e1?fbclid=IwAR3VoNeBGlx0OB-vuGpnpTRwdfGNZxcew4Kik-7TPADdWYL8PEgx6paqgdk

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

are you therefore saying the people who have given 1.8 million plus to those burned black churches in LA are giving to a crutch that should done away with?

https://www.wltx.com/article/news/nation-world/after-notre-dame-viral-tweet-helps-raise-18-million-for-black-churches-burned-down-in-louisiana/101-c6c1f81d-556f-4fec-8949-b08bfc3e38e1?fbclid=IwAR3VoNeBGlx0OB-vuGpnpTRwdfGNZxcew4Kik-7TPADdWYL8PEgx6paqgdk

Donations thru gofundme are typically not tax deductible.  Gofundme would not be affected by a change in tax code.

Also the statistics on charity giving based on income is falsely skewed to look like the wealthy donate more than the poor.  When a billionaire donates a million dollars to have a building named after his business it is reported as a million dollars in charity, when in fact he is spending a million dollars on marketing.  On the other hand when a person gives money to a neighbor whose house burned down or whose needs money for medical bills it goes unreported/unrecorded. 

[Fau Teixeira]

are you therefore saying the people who have given 1.8 million plus to those burned black churches in LA are giving to a crutch that should done away with?

https://www.wltx.com/article/news/nation-world/after-notre-dame-viral-tweet-helps-raise-18-million-for-black-churches-burned-down-in-louisiana/101-c6c1f81d-556f-4fec-8949-b08bfc3e38e1?fbclid=IwAR3VoNeBGlx0OB-vuGpnpTRwdfGNZxcew4Kik-7TPADdWYL8PEgx6paqgdk

i wouldn't give any money for building any churches .. ever .. but if other people want to who am i to stop them ?  they shouldn't get to deduct this off their taxes .. and churches for sure shouldn't have tax exempt status .. they provide a service .. very much like a psychologist .. just in reverse

[Dolphster]

I avoid all this controversy by not giving a crap about people and not giving anything to charity.  Although I do round up my purchases at PetSmart to give to homeless dogs. 

[CF DolFan]

I avoid all this controversy by not giving a crap about people and not giving anything to charity.  Although I do round up my purchases at PetSmart to give to homeless dogs.  

hahaha ... i think most people fall into your category. You're just honest about it. I think the fact they can raise over a billion dollars in one day to rebuild a building owned by a multi billion dollar org but we have people going hungry with much less donations just proves people are generally self interested. It makes them feel good to donate to their religion regardless of if it's needed but they don't do a whole lot for those who have nothing to give back. 

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

hahaha ... i think most people fall into your category. You're just honest about it. I think the fact they can raise over a billion dollars in one day to rebuild a building owned by a multi billion dollar org but we have people going hungry with much less donations just proves people are generally self interested. It makes them feel good to donate to their religion regardless of if it's needed but they don't do a whole lot for those who have nothing to give back. 

That is exactly the point most of us who want to expand taxpayer social programs are making.  Allowing people to choose what to support only widens the inequality in society. 

Billionaire donates a $10 million dollars to a private art museum that charges $50 admission, (so only accessible to the well off)  Billionaire gets a $3.7 million dollar tax break (and a wing named after himself) Wealthiest get some art to look at but the USDA has $3.7 million dollars less to spend on school lunches for hungry kids living in poverty.   

[CF DolFan]

That is exactly the point most of us who want to expand taxpayer social programs are making.  Allowing people to choose what to support only widens the inequality in society. 

Billionaire donates a $10 million dollars to a private art museum that charges $50 admission, (so only accessible to the well off)  Billionaire gets a $3.7 million dollar tax break (and a wing named after himself) Wealthiest get some art to look at but the USDA has $3.7 million dollars less to spend on school lunches for hungry kids living in poverty.   

But then you are forcing your will upon people who don't want it. This country was founded with the idea everyone should have equal opportunities of succeeding and not that everyone would have equal results. That's a new concept liberals are trying to force down our throats. Not that it matters but f you took 100 percent of the money from the 1 percenters it still wouldn't be enough to pay for the social programs that liberals want funded.   

[Fau Teixeira]

But then you are forcing your will upon people who don't want it. This country was founded with the idea everyone should have equal opportunities of succeeding and not that everyone would have equal results. That's a new concept liberals are trying to force down our throats. Not that it matters but f you took 100 percent of the money from the 1 percenters it still wouldn't be enough to pay for the social programs that liberals want funded.   

Taxes is society forcing its will upon people .. i agree .. in no place does "if you don't like it move" apply more than to taxes .. this is literally what pays for roads and water treatment and firefighters and defense. Society decided what it wants the government to do and then ti falls upon all of us to pay a share of that cost.

For example mediare for all (which i support) .. it would actually cost LESS than we currently spend on healthcare, and would cover more people than are currently covered. A Koch brothers funded study actually found that by going to 100% coverage with medicare and by doing away with private insurance, it would reduce healthcare costs by 2 TRILLION over 10 years. But because this takes away the profit motive from insurance companies, it's heavily opposed by republicans.  NOBODY likes their insurance company. They exist purely to make profit and provide no benefit whatsoever to your health. NONE. I could care less if i had BCBS or AETNA or if the US Government were the payer. What matters to me is which DR i see. This is about as cut and dry of an issue as can be in my opinion. Less cost, better outcomes 100% coverage .. same doctors. The only losers here are the insurance companies and their fat cat ceos. Or the pharma bros that upped the price of insulin from a few dollars to over $500.  Should we pass this type of law, would I be ok with paying more in taxes ? ABSOLUTELY I would .. it would offset the cost of premiums and deductibles and copays i have to pay currently.  I'd win in the long run.

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

But then you are forcing your will upon people who don't want it. This country was founded with the idea everyone should have equal opportunities of succeeding and not that everyone would have equal results. That's a new concept liberals are trying to force down our throats. Not that it matters but f you took 100 percent of the money from the 1 percenters it still wouldn't be enough to pay for the social programs that liberals want funded.   

But our society doesn’t have equal opportunity. Ivanka Trump and  children in Flint Michigan don’t have equal opportunities.  Restoring the gift and inheritance tax would improve this.

Being the top 1% have more wealth than the bottom 90% they could afford all the programs.

And I have no problem with people giving money to art museums, but that should not be at the expense of essential services such as school lunches   (eg not tax deductible)