Right wingers donate more to charity , and it's not even close!

POSTED BY: AURaptor
UPDATED: Sunday, April 19, 2009 19:32
VIEWED: 14282
PAGE 2 of 2

FIRST PAGE PREV PAGE 1 2

CITIZEN

Wednesday, April 15, 2009 5:36 PM

In that case:
Taxing: You're doin' it wrong.

Just out of curiosity, you guys pay 40% tax? That's our top level here, and we don't have crippling private healthcare payments on top of that, it's included.

RUE

Wednesday, April 15, 2009 5:59 PM

One of my issues with the tax system - we tax people below the poverty line. WTF ?

Now despite Rap's claim that 95% of 'them' don't pay taxes, we have a extremely regressive system. The poor and middle income people who can least afford it, pay ... and pay, and pay, and pay ... federal income tax, state income tax, SS tax, unemployment tax, sales tax, property tax, cigarette tax, alcohol tax, fuel tax, car registration ...

And anyone who wants skip income tax and go with sales tax just wants to double down on that system, and further reward the wealthy and grind down everyone else.

Obama's move to remove Bush's tax-break for the wealthy and provide some measure of tax relief to everyone else doesn't go nearly far enough.

Maybe he'll learn. Maybe not. My bet is that he'll only go as far as people actively demand. Otherwise, you can keep writing your checks to Geithner and he'll be happy to be the middleman, taking your money and giving it to the banks and Wall Street.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

KWICKO

Wednesday, April 15, 2009 6:00 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Maybe she had to; maybe her hands were tied, and it was politically expedient...

Mike

Trying on the Troll hat, are we?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

Just seeing how yours fits me!

Hey, you want to feel free to criticize the President without having a clue what you're talking about; I thought maybe your own advice might fit you.

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

SIGNYM

Wednesday, April 15, 2009 7:21 PM

Quote:
Excuse me miss!

Oh my! I haven't been called "miss" in about.... forty years! You made my day!

The remainder is a well-deserved hand-slap to me for saying something egregiously stoopid! You, Rue, TWG and anyone else who weighed in on this issue against me: all correct. Me, not so much!

CITIZEN: But don't you also pay VAT???
---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

FREMDFIRMA

Wednesday, April 15, 2009 7:31 PM

S'ok, we still luvs ya!
*hug*
If someone in this administration finds an ounce of brain cell and starts levelling out that nasty steep curve in taxes that prevents small businesses from becoming viable, it'd do a damn lot for economic recovery right there.

And I tend to get that odd look you just gave me rather often, I needed to pick up someone from the airport with Gus earlier today, and addressed a flight attendant (now having been informed this is the preferred modern address ) "Excuse me, Stewardess ?" - which I guess might get taken badly, but apparently the old fashioned chivalrous tone in which it was used sent her into a fit of giggles instead...

Hell, I still occasionally refer to Alice as a "Girl Friday", which drives her up the wall and causes her to remind me that this is 2009, not 1969...

Oops.

-F

RUE

Wednesday, April 15, 2009 7:41 PM

You have no idea how something so silly can feel so good.

Rolls - $1.29
Ham - $4.99
Wine - $1.99
Still being carded - priceless

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

SIGNYM

Wednesday, April 15, 2009 7:43 PM

YOU still get carded??????

HEYA Frem: It's so liberating to be able to admit when you're wrong! And when I'm wrong, it's a doozy! I luvs ya back!

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

CITIZEN

Wednesday, April 15, 2009 7:46 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
CITIZEN: But don't you also pay VAT???

On some things, but then you have VAT (or at least a sales tax) over there, at least in some states. I found yours a bit weird though, because it wasn't included in displayed prices. Was a bit confused by everything I bought being more expensive than I figured. We have council tax as well, which is anarchic bullshit put in by Thatcher as her big plan to remove the poll tax. If anything the Council tax is worse. But still, if Frem was paying nearly 40% tax that put him in the poor house, that's crazy. People on that sort of tax over here are pretty well off, my Dad is, and there's no way you could say he's starving. He's also living in one of the most expensive areas of the country, and he's pretty comfortable.

I guess my point is, we pay similar levels of tax, and we get a fair bit back from it. You guys get this massive military that serves to ensure it's needed by pissing half the world off by being there.

RUE

Wednesday, April 15, 2009 7:57 PM

"YOU still get carded??????"

Here, they card anyone who they think looks younger than 30. And what can I say. He was very young. Very inexperienced. (And very Asian - I'm guessing he didn't have much experience guessing the ages of white people.) Very embarrassed at his error.

It was a fluke.

But BOY did I feel good !

And I said an enthusiastic thank you !

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

RIVERDANCER

Wednesday, April 15, 2009 8:23 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
People donate to Church because they feel that the Church will perform good works in the spirit of the God or Gods they believe in.

I was under the impression that, at least in part, people donate to church because they've been told that if they don't tithe they'll burn in hell.
I could be wrong, as a vague outside observer on the whole subject. My father was a scientist and my mother didn't care, so none of these things were actually pounded into me as a child, but I do get the impression that not giving to your church = damnation.
I give at least half my tax refund to charity every year, and donate what I can for the rest of the year. It's not much, but I try. The most important to me personally are the clinics and Planned Parenthoods that provide badly-needed care to many poverty-stricken women, as well as the shelters and programs for victims of domestic abuse. Equality Now and the ACLU are also high on my list. I wonder if a lot of those would even be counted as charitable donations. I know there's a lot of it I can't write off. But I do it anyway.

RUE

Wednesday, April 15, 2009 8:44 PM

"I wonder if a lot of those would even be counted as charitable donations."

My opinion is 'no', many would not be counted.

That's another part of my objection to the article, and something I mentioned earlier. If you delimit your data you can exclude whole categories of donations.

Geezer for example, quotes numbers of self-reported donations (and yet another problem, self-reported data). And there is a category of secular donations. But what do they include ? The Red Cross ? Probably. United Way of America ? Probably. Goodwill ? Probably.

The Nature Conservancy ? The Audubon Society ? Greenpeace ? What about EFF ? The Sierra Club ? The ACLU ?

While these are organizations that some people believe are working to create a better world, and to which people give quite a bit of money, many would not be counted as 'charitable' secular donations.

If you exclude the 'causes' many liberals donate to, you can show that liberals are stingy tightwads who preach charity but practice selfishness - and get to keep your smug, self-congratulatory world-view.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

SERGEANTX

Wednesday, April 15, 2009 8:52 PM

But that's really a key aspect of charity, isn't it? Charitable giving is a very personal expression of our values. And what one person considers a noble cause, another might think of as a insidious threat to our culture.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

RUE

Wednesday, April 15, 2009 9:02 PM

People tend to think of charities as organizations that directly and immediately benefit people - those groups that will give a man a fish.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

SERGEANTX

Wednesday, April 15, 2009 9:05 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
People tend to think of charities as organizations that directly and immediately benefit people - those groups that will give a man a fish.

But not the ones that teach him to fish?

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

RUE

Wednesday, April 15, 2009 9:09 PM

Or let him fish and keep his fish ?
Or keep him out of jail for fishing ?

I don't know of any charities per se that are doing more than giving away fish.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

SERGEANTX

Wednesday, April 15, 2009 9:14 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Or let him fish and keep his fish ?
Or keep him out of jail for fishing ?

I don't know of any charities that are doing more than giving away fish.

I suspect many others have a broader definition. In any case, defining charity is problematic for these reasons. That's why this whole debate is rather moot. People have different values and priorities and will seek to make the world a better place in different ways.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

THATWEIRDGIRL

Wednesday, April 15, 2009 10:50 PM

SignyM, I'm not sure anyone's wrong in this thread....except for the ones that are. The idea of charity and donations is a very gray area.

The tax things just annoys me right now because I've finally experienced first hand how skewed it is. I had an idea it was, but well, when it happens to you it seems more real.

---
Sometimes I lie awake at night, and I ask, "Where have I gone wrong?" Then a voice says to me, "This is going to take more than one night."
-- Charlie Brown
www.thatcostumegirl.com
www.thatweirdgirl.com

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Thursday, April 16, 2009 12:46 AM

It seems one possible reason why liberals give less can be seen in the degree of religious intolerance and ignorance that are displayed by some of the hardline liberals. Some seem to wish to ignore religious contributions entirely, while criticizing the author of this book for supposedly ignoring secular charities. Whether the author is skewing the data has yet to be seen, but religious contributions to charity, in my experience, amount to a huge percentage if not the majority of charity in this country. I know that at my church there are dozens of programs, all of them nonprofit, which are run for the benefit of the community. Soup kitchens, food and clothes drives and even community beautification. And almost every other church in the area does the same. Recently some of the members of my church have visited the homeless at great risk to their own safety to hand out blankets and food. Another point that was raised was the desire to discredit the charitable donations of churches by claiming that such donations were given out of fear of “hell.” Even if this were true the charity is still quite real. This reflects a deep cynicism among Liberals. Perhaps it’s time for Liberals to stop being so cynical and start gathering in fellowship with one another to practice ideals of charity and love the way conservative Christians do.

As far as what is a charitable donation and what is not, I agree that it can be a grey issue, but clearly we can agree that a giving to the Nature Conservancy is certainly not any better then a church run soup kitchen.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

RUE

Thursday, April 16, 2009 1:15 AM

"I know that at my church there are dozens of programs, all of them nonprofit, which are run for the benefit of the community. Soup kitchens, food and clothes drives and even community beautification."

But do they come out of church donations ? No.

For example: "Catholic Charities - The largest private network of social service organizations in the United States works to support families, reduce poverty, and build communities." It has its own funding, its own donations, its own drives to support its various projects and programs. It gets none of the money that goes into the basket during services.

As far as I can see, church donations per se are money into a black hole that has nothing to do with 'charity'. And yet, they get counted.

That's one major source of inaccuracy in the data.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Thursday, April 16, 2009 1:20 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
"I know that at my church there are dozens of programs, all of them nonprofit, which are run for the benefit of the community. Soup kitchens, food and clothes drives and even community beautification."

But do they come out of church donations ? No.

For example: "Catholic Charities - The largest private network of social service organizations in the United States works to support families, reduce poverty, and build communities." It has its own funding, its own donations, its own drives to support its various projects and programs.

As far as I can see, church donations per se are money into a black hole that has nothing to do with 'charity'. And yet, they get counted.

That's one major source of inaccuracy in the data.

That’s nonsense, Rue. All of these church programs are funded through donations from church members and those giving to the charity, as well as manpower which comes directly from the church community.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

RUE

Thursday, April 16, 2009 1:28 AM

"Catholic Charities received nearly a quarter of its funding from government by the end of the sixties, over half by the late seventies, and more than 60 percent by the mid-eighties, where it has remained ever since."

"62 percent of the local agencies reported a decrease in government funding in 2003, and 54 percent reported a decline in United Way support. In addition, the agency survey showed that 46 percent saw a reduction in funding from foundations, 34 percent saw a downturn in corporate funding, and 32 percent reported a decline in donations (individual donations) in 2003.
The survey of 1,029 Catholics in October shows that 87 percent expect to give more or the same to charities this holiday season, with only 13 percent saying they expect to give less to charity during the holidays. The poll indicates that 75 percent expect to donate the same amount as last year, with 12 percent planning to give more."

Church donations from the collection plate going to help Catholic Charities ? Not so much.

And yet - those collection plate donations get counted as charitable contributions. Though they go to help no one. That's my point.

It's not about whether Catholics, Christians, Mormons etc are charitable - it's about which donations get counted and which don't.

As the author of the study noted: when you take CHURCH DONATIONS out of the picture, more liberals give than conservatives. SHOULD church donations be counted as charity ? I'd say not.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Thursday, April 16, 2009 1:37 AM

You live in a fantasy world, Rue. Catholic Charities are legitimate charities regardless of your intolerance for the Catholic faith. Your argument is dead in the water.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

RUE

Thursday, April 16, 2009 1:40 AM

I see you managed to miss my point all four or five times I posted it.

I wasn't saying that Catholic Charities is not a charity.

I was saying that CHURCH DONATIONS are not. Why ? Because THEY don't fund actual charitable work.

Do you think you can miss that simple point one more time ?

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Thursday, April 16, 2009 1:44 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
I see you managed to miss my point all four or five times I posted it.

I wasn't saying that Catholic Charities is not a charity.

I was saying that CHURCH DONATIONS are not. Because THEY don't actually fund charitable work.

Do you think you can miss that simple point one more time ?

I got your point just fine the first time. You’re trying to confuse the issue. Nonetheless, church run programs, faith-based charities and non-faith-based church charities are not only completely legitimate charities, but they are major part of the charities of many cities. And many people rely on them.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

RUE

Thursday, April 16, 2009 1:48 AM

But CHURCH DONATIONS, which do not fund charitable programs, ARE counted in the study - and they should not be.

If you base your conclusions on skewed data - as the author does - then your conclusions are invalid. As his are.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Thursday, April 16, 2009 1:53 AM

Donations to my church go to fund several church run programs that are charities. So I don't know what you think you know about my church that I don't or what you think you know about a book you haven't read, but you obviously need to be little more informed.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

RUE

Thursday, April 16, 2009 1:59 AM

Which programs ?

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Thursday, April 16, 2009 2:04 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Which programs ?

Scroll up. I've already pointed several of them out.

The people that give blankets to the homeless are not actually an official church program, so they don’t receive funding from the church, but nonetheless, they are members of the church who use their own incomes, their own time and risk their safety to help the homeless. These conservative Christians that you hate so much, this is what they do, at least many of them.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

RUE

Thursday, April 16, 2009 2:14 AM

"Soup kitchens ..."
But these are not funded through regular church donations collected during service - they are funded through foundations, Catholic Charities, the federal government, even food drives - but not from the weekly collection plate.

"... food and clothes drives ..."
And here you acknowledge in your very own post that these are NOT FUNDED through regular church donations, but through special collections and drives.

".. even community beautification ..."
Not sure that this is a charity, and not sure that regular church donations fund this.

"Recently some of the members of my church have visited the homeless at great risk to their own safety to hand out blankets and food."
Where did the money come from to buy those blankets and that food ? Was it the weekly church donations or some special drive or fund - or other source ?

"All of these church programs are funded through donations from church members and those giving to the charity (Catholic Charities) , as well as manpower which comes directly from the church community."
But you say nothing (yet again) about regular CHURCH DONATIONS going to fund any of this.

So, you managed to miss not only the bull's eye, but the target - yet again.

***************************************************************

Please note - (also again) I'm not slamming the individual generosity of anyone, or their willingness to donate time. I'm simply saying that the regular weekly church donations are not charitable contributions.

Charitable work is funded through other sources that are NOT the regular, weekly church donations.

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Thursday, April 16, 2009 2:30 AM

The soup kitchen, the food and clothes drives are all funded through donations to the church. The community beautification programs as much charities as the Nature Conservancy. And I’ve already explained the rest. Let me know when you come up with a point that doesn’t rely on your own pigheaded arrogance to pretend that you know something based solely on your prejudice of a religion or political view, until then you really don't have a point to make.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

RUE

Thursday, April 16, 2009 2:36 AM

"The soup kitchen, the food and clothes drives are all funded through donations to the church."

Get your church's budget. Assuming it is fairly large, and they break their sources of income and their expenses down into categories - check it out.

Then get back here with the results - OK ? We'll have something to tlak about then.

Because the budgets I've looked at and the churches I know about - don't do that at all. (Unless you want to count prosthelytizing as charity work - which I don't.)

In fact, here are some examples. I challenge you to find the 'charity' work in the budgets

http://www.stjlc.com/BUDGET_2009_PROPOSED.pdf

http://www.tlcmv.com/Leadership/Budget_2008.pdf

http://www.firstumchurch.com/FY09Budget.pdf

http://www.stmaryscadillac.com/Annual%20Meeting%202009_files/09%20Budg
et%20for%20Annual%20Mtg.pdf

http://www.province7.org/TreasurersReports/BUDGET2009.pdf

http://www.stjamesgb.org/Search/Condensed%202006%20Income-Expenses%20.
pdf

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

ANTHONYT

Thursday, April 16, 2009 2:44 AM

Hello,

If regular donations maintain the Church infrastructure, and that infrastructure is used to organize and deliver charity efforts, then even regular donations are contributing to charity.

Even if all the tithing does is keep the Church operational, it contributes to the good works.

You will note that many charities use funds collected to maintain their infrastructure and employees. This allows them to actually perform all that charity work they do.

Many charities, Churches included, may misspend some of their funds, and that is open to debate. But saying Religious donations don't count is a failure to see the whole picture.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

RUE

Thursday, April 16, 2009 3:01 AM

"If regular donations maintain the Church infrastructure, and that infrastructure is used to organize and deliver charity efforts ..."

But that infrastructure is NOT used. Or it would show up in the budget. What you see is church donations going to maintain - more church donations. The ministers. The flowers.

And - is THAT how you want to excuse ALL church donations being counted as charitable ones ? Really ?

Aren't you stretching that just a little bit ?

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

ANTHONYT

Thursday, April 16, 2009 5:03 AM

Hello,

Every charitable organization must do the following:

1) Maintain itself
2) Advertise itself
3) Advertise its focus
4) Expand itself (recruit).
5) Perform charitable work.

Perhaps you can illustrate for me how a religious charity (a Christian Church, for instance) differs from any other charity in this regard?

Let's take the Humane Society for instance.

They collect money. They pay for facilities and wages. They advertise their activities in many places. They run ads about abused animals, abandoned animals, and the need to spay and neuter animals. They consistently open offices in new locales and hire additional employees. They collect strays and abused animals, rehabilitate them, spay and neuter them, and adopt them out.

Let's take an organization I despise. The Catholic Church.

They collect money. They pay for facilities and wages. They advertise their activities in many places. They advertise about God, Christ, charity and love, and run information campaigns about how you can save your soul. They consistently open offices in new locales and hire additional employees. In addition to telling you how to save your soul, they run fundraisers to distribute food, clothing, housing, and counseling to those in need.

Both of these organizations could stand to spend their money more wisely and effectively, but they are both charities, and perform the same type of functions.

Disconnect yourself from their mandate, and they are just two charitable groups doing charitable work. But you have to disconnect your emotions from the equation, else you'll only see one group saving furballs while humans suffer and die, and another group hoarding wealth to subsidize pedophiles while providing minimal needed services.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

ANTHONYT

Thursday, April 16, 2009 5:15 AM

"But that infrastructure is NOT used. Or it would show up in the budget. What you see is church donations going to maintain - more church donations. The ministers. The flowers."

Hello,

The building, the ministers, the flowers, the pews, all that IS infrastructure used. People gather in the shadow of these (to you) petty implements and unnecessary expenses and it is during these gatherings that fundraisers are held, people are extorted to charitable christian behavior, and people are organized into volunteer groups to carry out charitable works.

It's used. Just not the way you'd personally prefer. My suggestion? Don't give to Church. You clearly can think of more efficient charitable groups.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

SHINYGOODGUY

Thursday, April 16, 2009 6:53 AM

What I've learned, and a hard lesson to boot, is that those who have a lot 'lobby' to keep what they got; and those who have not foot the bill.

It's the age-old game of Status quo. The Corporations, the same ones with their hand out for Bailout Money, and the filthy rich pay little to no tax via loopholes and such. They, in turn, pay lobbyists to push their agenda to hold onto as much of "their" money as possible. But someone has to pay for the roads, schools, bridges, etc.

Along comes Joe Blow and whammo! "hey you, be a patriot and pay your taxes." The super rich remain in power and pay to have the Status remain Quo.

The solution: A Flat Tax. Have everyone pay their fare share. It has been proposed a number of times, but lobbyists rail against it because......
let's hear it, altogether now...........

SGG

Tawabawho?

SERGEANTX

Thursday, April 16, 2009 10:39 AM

I think a flat tax would be a step in the right direction. Tax all income above the poverty rate at exactly the same percentage. That still leaves a lot of holes, as income can be surprisingly difficult to define, but it's still worth attempting.

The usual objections come from those who've grown accustomed to using the tax code as de-facto legislation to promote "social change". That tendency is my biggest beef with the way we tax in this country. If some group wants to push people into a desired behavioral change, they should be honest about it and use real laws. The back-door approach of 'tax incentives' is a deceptive and fucks up a system that should be focused on generating needed government revenue.

As a side note, I'm a small-government advocate who isn't currently advocating tax cuts. In fact, I think we should raise taxes to accurately reflect the insane spending spree we're indulging. It might not be good for the economy in the short term, but it would be honest feedback for citizens who expect their government to perform miracles.

*** Disclaimer

I am, and will likely always be, fundamentally opposed to the idea of taxing income in the first place. It's a gross violation of privacy and essentially establishes us all as slaves of the government. The above argument is strictly in the context of the current assumption that we "must" tax income to survive as a nation. I don't hold with that assumption.
SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

FREMDFIRMA

Thursday, April 16, 2009 11:29 AM

I feel ya, my empress - just don't never get as bitter as I am about it, ok ?

Yes, Cit, it's every bit as bad as that, in fact, worse - independent contractor, I got hit at about 34%, and as owner/operator of a small security firm it's about 38%

That's income ONLY.

Now add in property tax, sales tax, state and local taxes, seriously BRUTAL excise taxes (as in the tax itself being 160% of the products COST) cause god forbid I enjoy something other folk are morally or religiously opposed to, motor fuel tax, utility taxes, telephone line taxes, and the ever present additional bite come Apr 15th...

I tallied it up, and when you put it all together ?

FIFTY SIX PERCENT.
Of every penny I make or spend, more than half of it goes to feed the bloated, parasitic monster preying on me, and using that money for the most part on things in direct opposition to everything I believe in.

The sickest irony of it all, is that all that money for police protection comes to naught in this neighborhood, which is why site three hired us, cause to date the local PD has had a flat zero effectiveness, and if you include the lawsuits and legal bills from rampant abuse and corruption, in fact a negative effect on the community since the local perps are very well aware that the cops cannot be bothered to come here - as I mentioned elsewhere, they will issue a report number over the phone and that's IT, unless someones life is actively in danger, and at that point they send one car for a quick drive through and don't even stop or look around, and THAT takes 90+ minutes, if it comes at all.

And now all of the sudden they want MORE money than was budgeted cause they can't cover the lawsuits and legal fees caused by their own misconduct, and have resorted to open threats in their attempts to obtain it ?

How is this not extortion by a criminal racket again ?

So come May 5th, when we vote on whether or not to submit to their extortion and shell out the dosh via property tax millage, I am gonna pull my top hat, cape and regalia out of the closet, and I am going as Dynamo - and damn well gonna verbally decry their halfass, ham-fisted and inefficient villanry as unbecoming of proper evildoers.

One does not continue to maintain an obviously failed facade when their cover is clearly blown, it's uncivilized, nay, cowardly, and will not be tolerated!
*fist shake*

Ayep, imma START some shit, you bet.

-Frem
It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

RIPWASH

Thursday, April 16, 2009 12:54 PM

I'm no expert by any means but I think another term being bandied about is a "Fair Tax" which seems more viable than a flat tax. As I understand it, the Fair Tax (and I could be wrong, mind you) allows for all NEW items to be taxed at a certain rate. New cars = tax, used cars = no tax. Groceries = tax, antiques = no tax. That kind of thing. This is "fair" because the rich spend/buy far more than us little people do and so would be essentially taxed more. There's a little more to it than that, of course, but that's the bare bones run-down of it.

I've heard that our income tax, as it stands right now, was never even really ratified when it was introduced in the first place and may be unconstitutional. Again, I may be wrong, that's just what I've heard. If anyone knows more about that, I'd like to see your sources so I can do a little research on it myself.

Zoe: "Get it running again."
Mal: "Yeah"
Zoe: "So not running now"
Mal: "Not so much"
- Out of Gas

SERGEANTX

Thursday, April 16, 2009 1:04 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by RIPWash:
I'm no expert by any means but I think another term being bandied about is a "Fair Tax" which seems more viable than a flat tax.

The "fair tax" is just a national sales tax, which in my opinion is a worse option. Especially from the point of view of retailers who would essentially be conscripted as tax-collectors. But on the other hand, it would set up a healthy black market, which would be good medicine for overreaching government.

Quote:
I've heard that our income tax, as it stands right now, was never even really ratified when it was introduced in the first place and may be unconstitutional. Again, I may be wrong, that's just what I've heard. If anyone knows more about that, I'd like to see your sources so I can do a little research on it myself.

This may be technically true. But technical truth doesn't mean much to the judges who'll find you guilty of tax evasion if you don't pay. The constitution is only as strong as our collective will to demand that it be followed. In other words, pretty goddamned weak.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Thursday, April 16, 2009 1:11 PM

The Fair Tax is an attempt to eliminate the Income Tax. I’m a proponent of the Fair Tax because I think it does proportion the tax burden more fairly. There are some concerns with it. For instance, in an economic down turn, if the government’s revenue is supported through taxing purchases, then the revenue will decrease. I can see the problem here, but I think we can get around that by making government more flexible. The Fair Tax would force the government to spend responsibly, which it currently does not do. It would also force the government to work towards growing the economy, much more then it currently does, since its livelihood would depend directly on growing the economy instead of indirectly through voter support.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

SERGEANTX

Thursday, April 16, 2009 1:26 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
The Fair Tax would force the government to spend responsibly, which it currently does not do.

How would it do that? Does the proposal include a balanced budget provision?

Quote:
It would also force the government to work towards growing the economy...

Not sure how this would provide any stronger incentive than income tax. In any case, "growing the economy" isn't the proper role of government. That's exactly what got us into the current mess.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Thursday, April 16, 2009 1:39 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
The Fair Tax would force the government to spend responsibly, which it currently does not do.

How would it do that? Does the proposal include a balanced budget provision?

Some versions do, or at least I’ve heard talk about that. However, I’m thinking more on the lines of a government whose revenue is tied directly to the consumption in the economy. When that consumptions decreases, the government will have to make due with less, so you’d think that this would lead to a more responsible spending overall. And it would also make the government more interested in increasing the economic activity all together in order to maintain its revenue.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

SERGEANTX

Thursday, April 16, 2009 1:45 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Some versions do, or at least I’ve heard talk about that. However, I’m thinking more on the lines of a government whose revenue is tied directly to the consumption in the economy. When that consumptions decreases, the government will have to make due with less, so you’d think that this would lead to a more responsible spending overall.

Ahh.. ok. I guess I'm thinking it would take something a little stronger than that (more like a crowbar to the head) to steer them away from deficit spending.

Quote:
.. And it would also make the government more interested in increasing the economic activity all together in order to maintain its revenue.

Well, like I said, I don't want them more interested in that. What the hell, if we want to kick back and take it easy for awhile (or just be more frugal and save for retirement for that matter), why should the government be pushing us onto the hamster wheel?

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Thursday, April 16, 2009 1:57 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Some versions do, or at least I’ve heard talk about that. However, I’m thinking more on the lines of a government whose revenue is tied directly to the consumption in the economy. When that consumptions decreases, the government will have to make due with less, so you’d think that this would lead to a more responsible spending overall.

Ahh.. ok. I guess I'm thinking it would take something a little stronger than that (more like a crowbar to the head) to steer them away from deficit spending.

I’m never surprised by the government’s tenacity to preserve bad spending habits.

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
Well, like I said, I don't want them more interested in that. What the hell, if we want to kick back and take it easy for awhile (or just be more frugal and save for retirement for that matter), why should the government be pushing us onto the hamster wheel?

I want the government to encourage economy growth and I like the idea of the hardworking American, which I think is quickly becoming a thing of the past. For a long time, taxes were levied on consumption or production. Excise taxes, tariffs, custom duties were the way the government was supported. When we started taxing individual income we started to penalize individuals for their hard work and I don’t think that has encouraged hardworking American spirit to continue.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

RUE

Thursday, April 16, 2009 3:25 PM

AnthonyT

"The building, the ministers, the flowers, the pews, all that IS infrastructure used. People gather in the shadow of these (to you) petty implements and unnecessary expenses and it is during these gatherings that fundraisers are held, people are extorted to charitable christian behavior, and people are organized into volunteer groups to carry out charitable works."

Let me give you an extreme example - the Crystal Cathedral and its spectacular (and expensive) performances. Are you saying that people NEED it in order to be charitable ? That somehow they couldn't meet in the library, school or city hall ? Or the local restaurant (where we used to hold our charitable meetings) ? That DURING SERVICES people are actively holding meetings to run the food bank ? That they are actively running the shelters from the basement ?

What you think of as necessary is - ancillary. It could and has happened anywhere, and nearly always happens elsewhere.

The argument - that the elaborate church buildings, the fax machines, the sermons - are NECESSARY to charity is simply not true.

As I said before - and maybe I have to repeat it - this is not to say that some people who belong to churches are not charitable. If they do the extra work - hold the meetings, run the drives, distribute the services - then of course that is charitable work.

But simply paying the church contribution - which is never spent on charitable programs - is not in and of itself a charitable contribution.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

ANTHONYT

Thursday, April 16, 2009 3:39 PM

Hello,

The Crystal Cathedral is indeed an extreme example. I have much smaller experiences with Church charity. People meeting in a church, people spending half an hour hearing a lesson from the Bible and singing songs. Ten minutes taking communion. Ten minutes giving money to the plates...

And Ten minutes of that Hour long service being encouraged to buy cookies to generate money for homeless shelters. Or being asked to volunteer for Church homebuilding initiatives. Or being asked to make a special donation to Carl's family who is suffering in the wake of his Cancer diagnosis. Or being asked to volunteer for the teen counseling program.

And then later, that same Church's support buildings are used. The hall serves a charity breakfast with prayer. Then the hall is used to organize the next food drive, then the hall is used for an after-school youth meeting to discuss the pressures of being a teen in a cruel world, and how to resist the temptation to slit your wrists.

Do people need all the religious trappings in order to be charitable? Obviously, Rue, some people do.

You are arguing against Religious Charity because you perceive it as inefficient. Meanwhile other charities use 10 cents per dollar of total revenues collected to actually help people.

Or less.

Charity giving is intention based. Religious charity givers intend that their religious tithings will go to do God's Good Work.

You may not like God, or Church efficiency, or the 'waste' of income on gilded golden crosses and preacher sedans. I argue this is just advertising and employee transportation.

Inefficient? Maybe. But many charities tend to be. Are you really only going to count the money that actually lands in the hands of the needy?

If so, tossing spare change at a bum on the street is probably the most efficient charity of all. No infrastructure or waste involved.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

SIGNYM

Thursday, April 16, 2009 3:49 PM

Quote:
You are arguing against Religious Charity because you perceive it as inefficient. Meanwhile other charities use 10 cents per dollar of total revenues collected to actually help people.

Not so. Depends on the charity.

www.charitynavigator.com

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

SIGNYM

Thursday, April 16, 2009 4:13 PM

Quote:
If regular donations maintain the Church infrastructure, and {if}that infrastructure is used to organize and deliver charity efforts, then even regular donations are contributing to charity. Even if all the tithing does is keep the Church operational, it contributes to the good works. You will note that many charities use funds collected to maintain their infrastructure and employees. This allows them to actually perform all that charity work they do. Many charities, Churches included, may misspend some of their funds, and that is open to debate. But saying Religious donations don't count is a failure to see the whole picture.

I smell a lot of "if" comin' offa that plan.

IF the church only uses its resources (buildings, staff time and infrastructure) 10% of the time to support charitable works, then it should be judged LIKE ANY OTHER CHARITY: 90% for "administrative and fund-raising" and 10% for "program expenses". On average, the non-profits reviewed by charity navigator spend about 80-95% of their money on programs, and 5-20% on administrative costs, fundraising etc.

Seems to ME that there is a GREAT DEAL of unwarranted cyncism about SECULAR charities... cynicism not borne out by facts.

But, to go back to Rue's point: If the quoted study counts ALL church donations as "charitable" then the data is badly skewed and quite obviously unrealistic. Like secular donations, church donations should be (but usually aren't) evaluated for which portion goes to "programs" and which portion goes to "other costs".

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

ANTHONYT

Thursday, April 16, 2009 4:13 PM

Hello,

Signy, I did not mean to imply that all charities everywhere are 10 percent or less efficient. I'm sorry if it came across that way.

I did mean to imply that *several* other charities are 10 percent or less efficient.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

RUE

Thursday, April 16, 2009 4:18 PM

"Inefficient? Maybe. But many charities tend to be. Are you really only going to count the money that actually lands in the hands of the needy?"

Well, there is a slight misperception here (to which I contriubuted). It's not the money that is counted in the survey, it's the number of people. The people who do nothing more than make a church contribution are counted as charitable contributors.

So, to get back to the argument - you do admit that at some point - like the Crystal Catherdral - the argument breaks down ?

Oh - btw - I will have to be off-line for the rest of the day. I will be happy to discuss this, but you may need to either PM or bring this back up top tomorrow.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

ANTHONYT

Thursday, April 16, 2009 4:28 PM

Hello,

Rue, Signy, in fact I am appalled by the gross inefficiency of organized religion, period. I am angered by their excesses and use of funds for self-glorification instead of actually doing the Christian work of helping your fellow man. (Or Moses work, or whatever other prophet you like.)

But in a world where "Jobs with Justice" spends 77.5% of its income on admin costs, and only God knows how much of its 22% Program Expenses actually do go to help people, I think you can't single out religious charities.

If you want there to be some new standard to defining a charity, I say have at it. I agree and will sign up. But don't poo-poo on religious charity givers. They did, in fact, give to a charity. Either because their conscience told them so, or because their priest compelled them, or because that's What Jesus Would Do.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

FREMDFIRMA

Friday, April 17, 2009 12:10 AM

Charity comes in all flavors.

One of our much more successful sister organisations just dumped a SHITLOAD of money into education this week, and so far managed to do it without rocking too many boats or revealing themselves - tho their frontmen did get a grilling from DepHomeSec about it.

-F

GEEZER

Friday, April 17, 2009 2:30 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
All you assholes - especially Geezer - I didn't criticize the study. I know, this is your way of painting me as something I am not.

Go back a READ my posts - if you actually know how to read - OK ?

"Posted by Rap, written by Will, about a 'study' done by Arthur C. Brooks, to be accurate."

Sorry, but the 'study' in quotes generally indicates criticism or disbelief to most folk.

Having finished the book, it appears Mr. Brooks has a pretty compelling argument, based on several surveys, that religious folk have a higher rate of charitable contributions and volunteerism, both to religious and secular charities, than the secular. The stats he quotes also indicate that Conservatives are three times as likely as Liberals to be religious, so there's more conservatives contributing.

Since I and Madame Geezer are about as non-religious as can be this is interesting to me. The Geezer family drops about 4.5% of gross income to charity, so I guess we're outliers.

Interestingly, he also shows stats that indicate that the U.S. population contributes way more to charity than pretty much any other country.

In the introduction to the book, the author states that he originally believed the common perception that Liberals were more charitable than Conservatives, and was surprised when he analyzed the available data.

maybe you should take the time to read the book and form an opinion based on the author's work, rather than making suppositions.

BTW, being retired doesn't mean you have no obligations or tasks. I've been spending 6 to 8 hours a day six days a week re-modeling our basement since mid-March.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

CITIZEN

Friday, April 17, 2009 6:55 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello,

If regular donations maintain the Church infrastructure, and that infrastructure is used to organize and deliver charity efforts, then even regular donations are contributing to charity.

Do charities ever use roads?

Does that mean my taxes that build and maintain the roads are regular charitable donations?

GEEZER

Friday, April 17, 2009 12:45 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Well, there is a slight misperception here (to which I contributed). It's not the money that is counted in the survey, it's the number of people. The people who do nothing more than make a church contribution are counted as charitable contributors.

But the Religious, Conservative and Liberal, also contribute heavily to non-religious causes. 71% of Religious Conservatives do so, as compared with 88% who contribute to religious causes. Religious Liberals are on par with this, at 72% non-religious and 86% religious.

Interestingly, the Secular Conservatives seem to be the least charitable, at 55% non-religious and 34% religious.

And strangely enough, 22% of Secular Liberals still contribute to religious charities (69% to non-religious).

Another question is "What constitutes a religious charity?" I send money to the North Georgia Conference Methodist Childrens Home. Goes to provide services and shelter for orphaned and displaced children. But since it's under the auspices of the Methodist church, it'd be considered a religious charity.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

GEEZER

Friday, April 17, 2009 12:49 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Do charities ever use roads?

Does that mean my taxes that build and maintain the roads are regular charitable donations?

Also addressed in the book. Charitable contributions are defined as those given freely, without coercion or the possibility of coercion. So no. Your taxes aren't charitable contributions.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

BLUESUNCOMPANYMAN

Friday, April 17, 2009 2:05 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
For a long time, taxes were levied on consumption or production. Excise taxes, tariffs, custom duties were the way the government was supported. When we started taxing individual income we started to penalize individuals for their hard work and I don’t think that has encouraged hardworking American spirit to continue.

Hear, Hear.

This is why everyone should support the Fairtax. From Rue to Auraptor. From Kwicko to Wulf. All of you. All of us.

SIGNYM

Friday, April 17, 2009 2:16 PM

Geezer, I think at issue is the definition of "charity": which contributions count and which don't, and to what extent.

I think Rue has made a solid case that very little of the donations to churches (not to "religious causes" like Catholic Charities or Salvation Army, but to the actual churches) goes to charity. The other side of the question is whether groups like Amnesty International are counted as "charity". I tend to donate rather heavily to "rights" groups, as I think it's better to give people the opportunity to free themselves from enslavement rather than simply to toss some bread over the barbed wire.

But I don't know if that "counts". Does your book clarify this?

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

CITIZEN

Friday, April 17, 2009 3:37 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Also addressed in the book. Charitable contributions are defined as those given freely, without coercion or the possibility of coercion. So no. Your taxes aren't charitable contributions.

They're defined that way in the book, but a few people are taking issue with the books definition, so that's hardly an argument winner.

Anthony said that building up the infrastructure of the church, that may then be used in a charitable way albeit indirectly, is charity. Ok maybe a better example would be the one I made earlier. I freely give money to my martial arts class, and some of that money builds and maintains infrastructure used for charity. So my Martial arts subscription is a charitable donation.

RUE

Friday, April 17, 2009 4:01 PM

Hi AnthonyT

I have just a few moments, so I'll just post briefly: "... in fact I am appalled by the gross inefficiency of organized religion, period."

I think that charities which use only 10% of their donations for actual charity - are 10% more efficient than church contributions which use none. I think a division needs to be made between church donations which go for running the church, and the actual charity work done by the groups - or individuals - that belong to the church.

But the efficiency of charities raises a good point. Perhaps there needs to be a minimum standard before they can be tax exempt.

Also, I think there needs to be a better rationale for how we classify things. Religious / tax-exempt / non-profit / charity are not all the same. There needs to be some recognition that there is a lot of shading between categories that we don't currently take into account.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

RUE

Friday, April 17, 2009 4:03 PM

Geezer

If you bump this back up top in about 9 hours, I'll remember to reply. Or PM me.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

GEEZER

Friday, April 17, 2009 7:14 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
I think Rue has made a solid case that very little of the donations to churches (not to "religious causes" like Catholic Charities or Salvation Army, but to the actual churches) goes to charity.

So would you consider money contributed to the local symphony orchestra charity? An orchestra provides services only to a self-selected group of music lovers, just like a church provides services to a self-selected group of co-religionists. Neither one is going to do as much to alleviate poverty or stop injustice as an organization specifically created to do so: though I'd guess that churches, in the main, provide more anti-poverty and civil rights support than orchestras.

Quote:
The other side of the question is whether groups like Amnesty International are counted as "charity". I tend to donate rather heavily to "rights" groups, as I think it's better to give people the opportunity to free themselves from enslavement rather than simply to toss some bread over the barbed wire.

But I don't know if that "counts". Does your book clarify this?

Most of the data is from surveys, so the respondents themselves determine what counts. If you were surveyed, I assume you'd say your donations to Amnesty International were charitable contributions. You might also say your donations to the symphony were charitable. If you'd like, you can check some of the links to the surveys used, which I provided earlier, and see their exact questions and methodology.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

GEEZER

Friday, April 17, 2009 7:15 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Geezer

If you bump this back up top in about 9 hours, I'll remember to reply. Or PM me.

Okay. Sometime tomorrow morning, if the painting goes well.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

GEEZER

Friday, April 17, 2009 7:25 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
They're defined that way in the book, but a few people are taking issue with the books definition, so that's hardly an argument winner.

Even the people discussing the definition of charity aren't suggesting that taxes are a form of charity, so that's hardly a cogent argument.

Quote:
I freely give money to my martial arts class, and some of that money builds and maintains infrastructure used for charity. So my Martial arts subscription is a charitable donation.

Do you freely give money to your martial arts class in exchange for some specified set of services they are expected to provide in exchange? If so, then you're involved in a business transaction, not a charitable donation. Now, the martial arts class may be making a charitable donation if they are able to provide free lessons due to the money you pay them to buy services.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

SHINYGOODGUY

Saturday, April 18, 2009 5:18 AM

I agree, especially with no tax for income below a certain level (I say 30K a year and below should not be taxed, end of story).

That would go a long way to stimulating the economy because people would have some money to spend or invest (but I think more than likely folks would have a decent place to live and be able to afford food).

And yes, government should get out of the way and only step in when laws must be put in place to curb those who would rob us blind (see Enron, Milkken, Madoff). In cases where those sharks would feed on the trusting souls who pay the CEOs salaries - I say fry 'em if they dupe the people. I have absolutely no sympathy for corporate crooks, they are nothing but thieves and should be treated as such.

The tax loopholes that exist in the system are designed to advance the rich and powerful agenda: to stay rich and powerful. There should be breaks for those who actually need it, like the truly sick (medically ill) and those that serve their country, period.

If there are going to be tax breaks then give it ti those who actually better the community, that build hospitals for sick children and charge those patients little or nothing to help them get better and recover, but most especially Vets.

I also agree that no tax makes us dependent on other countries (currently China is our biggest lender and holds paper on billions worth of Treasury bills) further putting us in the hole.
Also, I'm for no Bailouts. Let those companies that were reckless and irresponsible (and some, AIG, downright criminal) burn. Allow the so-called "Free Market" sort out the weeds from the vines bearing fruit.

This has everything to do with class, and nothing to do with red states or blue states, or regions, skin color or religious beliefs. There is only one color these folks bow down to - Green, cashy- money.

SGG

Tawabawho?

SIGNYM

Saturday, April 18, 2009 6:37 AM

Quote:
So would you consider money contributed to the local symphony orchestra charity? An orchestra provides services only to a self-selected group of music lovers, just like a church provides services to a self-selected group of co-religionists. Neither one is going to do as much to alleviate poverty or stop injustice as an organization specifically created to do so: though I'd guess that churches, in the main, provide more anti-poverty and civil rights support than orchestras.

If it's self-defined, then music-lovers prolly WOULD define their contributions as charity, because nobody wants to admit that they're giving money to a pet project which benefits mainly themselves. Pretty much the same as churchgoers, I'd guess.

In any case, I dislike the notion of "charity". I think we'd all be better served by fairness and compassion.

---------------------------------
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

CITIZEN

Saturday, April 18, 2009 11:41 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Even the people discussing the definition of charity aren't suggesting that taxes are a form of charity, so that's hardly a cogent argument.

I was merely pointing out that dismissing anything I say because it's counter to what the book defines, when it's the books definition being questioned, is not a cogent argument. I fail to see how the "Rubber-Glue" defence strengthens your position.

Quote:
Do you freely give money to your martial arts class in exchange for some specified set of services they are expected to provide in exchange? If so, then you're involved in a business transaction, not a charitable donation. Now, the martial arts class may be making a charitable donation if they are able to provide free lessons due to the money you pay them to buy services.

And if the money you freely give to the church is used to keep the church going so that you can continue to receive your Sunday service, hows that any different? Now the church may then use some of that money to make a charitable donation.

GEEZER

Saturday, April 18, 2009 11:55 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
And if the money you freely give to the church is used to keep the church going so that you can continue to receive your Sunday service, hows that any different? Now the church may then use some of that money to make a charitable donation.

Because the church will provide its services to you, or anyone, without you having to pay for it. And your contributions to the church are used to provide services to everyone who asks, not just you. It's not you paying for services that benefit only you, like your deal with the martial arts school.

Of course, if you want to claim your martial arts school payments or your tax payment as charity on your next income tax return, I'm sure Inland Revenue will give you a practical definition of what's charity and what's not.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

CITIZEN

Saturday, April 18, 2009 12:14 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
And if the money you freely give to the church is used to keep the church going so that you can continue to receive your Sunday service, hows that any different? Now the church may then use some of that money to make a charitable donation.

Because the church will provide its services to you, or anyone, without you having to pay for it. And your contributions to the church are used to provide services to everyone who asks, not just you. It's not you paying for services that benefit only you, like your deal with the martial arts school.

Of course, if you want to claim your martial arts school payments or your tax payment as charity on your next income tax return, I'm sure Inland Revenue will give you a practical definition of what's charity and what's not.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

Inland Revenue wouldn't be much help to me, since they don't exist. I could ask the HMRC next time I'm there, but since I'm saying contributions to your church aren't charitable contributions, not that my martial arts contributions are, it's a fairly moot point. I rather doubt you could really get away with never putting anything in the collection plate, your rhetorical objection not withstanding. I don't know why you're fixating on appeals to authority though. First the book, now the "Inland Revenue"?

Besides I don't fill out tax returns, my taxes are calculated through PAYE.

GEEZER

Saturday, April 18, 2009 12:37 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
If it's self-defined, then music-lovers prolly WOULD define their contributions as charity, because nobody wants to admit that they're giving money to a pet project which benefits mainly themselves. Pretty much the same as churchgoers, I'd guess.

So we've established that charity is in the eye of the giver. I'm sure contributors to the symphony consider that it does good work, just like folk who volunteer at a library, or people who donate to PETA or Hunters for the Hungry, or pretty much anything else that has a purpose perceived as 'good' by a group of folk.

Quote:
In any case, I dislike the notion of "charity". I think we'd all be better served by fairness and compassion.

Interesting. This is a very European point of view. They - per the book - overwhelmingly consider government the proper, and only, provider of fairness and compassion, rather than individuals. Hence they tend to donate much less time and money than here in the U.S. They assume that it'll just come out of everyone's taxes.

I, personally have a couple of problems with that.
First, it lets folk (I'm not talking about you here, but folk who say 'let the government do it all') feel virtuious for supporting compassion without actually having to do anything.

Second, I doubt the efficiency of government to do anything, including giving money away.

Third, the goverment and I may not see eye to eye on where the money should go. If the U.S. government had the purse strings in it's hands and we got an extra-conservative administration some time in the future, do you think Amnesty International, or it's governmental analogue, would get much money?

BTW, the only stat I could find on charity in Nationmaster is volunteerism. Australia leads the way with 18% of population volunteering, the U.S. second with 15%, and the Netherlands next at 9% and down from there.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/lif_mem_of_vol_org_cha-lifestyle-mem
bers-voluntary-organisations-charity

I did find several remarks bemoaning the lack of studies of charitable giving in Europe.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

GEEZER

Saturday, April 18, 2009 12:46 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
...but since I'm saying contributions to your church aren't charitable contributions, not that my martial arts contributions are, it's a fairly moot point.

So to go at it from the other side, what would you consider valid charitable contributions?

BTW, when I type in 'Inland Revenue' and it takes me to the HMRC site, I assume some folk still call it by that name.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

KWICKO

Saturday, April 18, 2009 12:49 PM

Quote:

Second, I doubt the efficiency of government to do anything, including giving money away.

Just to inject a bit of snark and smartassery here...

You don't think the government has efficiently given away our money? Goodness, they've given away well over a trillion dollars in six months - that's got to set some kind of record for efficiency, even if it's only the efficiency of their printing presses!

Sorry, but I couldn't resist.

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

CITIZEN

Saturday, April 18, 2009 3:08 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
BTW, when I type in 'Inland Revenue' and it takes me to the HMRC site, I assume some folk still call it by that name.

It's a name change (or rather a merger of government departments, namely Her Majesties Customs and Excise and Inland Revenue), I imagine that linking to your old name is rather standard practice. I expect if you searched for DTI (Department for Trade and Industry) it would bring up the exact same department that it's name changed to (BERR Business Enterprise and Regulatory Reform). Gordon Brown superficially changed a bunch of things just to prove he was in charge, in lieu of actually having any real respect or stewardship of his party.

Anyway, yeah I was making a smart arse comment, because it was an appeal to authority. What does the Inland Revenue have to do with anything?

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
So to go at it from the other side, what would you consider valid charitable contributions?

What is, is a more difficult question than what is not. Perhaps charity could be defined as giving materially (money, time, cans of food etc) to a cause which you are not likely to receive any direct personal benefit from. Would this exclude giving to your church? Yes, because you're giving to keep your Church going, which is a part of your community and social life, and thus is directly benefiting you.

Religious people tend to have the church as the centre of their social life, so I'd say seeing including the financial support of a religious persons social life as charity, unfair if you don't include secular social pursuits as well. They're giving to the Church to support their social life, if they didn't do so the church would close and they'd lose it's service. I don't see how that is different from giving money to any other type of social activity.

Further, why is something automatically not charity just because the exchange is more codified? Ok whether I'm willing to pay my National Insurance contributions to the NHS or not, I still have to, but if I'm perfectly happy to do so, if I believe the NHS is a good cause, and would pay into it even if I didn't have to, why can't it be charity just because if I didn't want to it would be enforced? Surely Charity is more about personal intent?

GEEZER

Saturday, April 18, 2009 11:42 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:

What is, is a more difficult question than what is not. Perhaps charity could be defined as giving materially (money, time, cans of food etc) to a cause which you are not likely to receive any direct personal benefit from. Would this exclude giving to your church? Yes, because you're giving to keep your Church going, which is a part of your community and social life, and thus is directly benefiting you.

Religious people tend to have the church as the centre of their social life, so I'd say seeing including the financial support of a religious persons social life as charity, unfair if you don't include secular social pursuits as well.

So would you consider donations to a local orchestra or theatre group to be charitable? Most people who donate to such organizations also attend performances, and thus receive a social benefit. For many people, their participation in such an organization is the center of their social life.

Then again there are a lot of folks who donate to and volunteer to participate in organizations which do good works for the disadvantaged who build their social lives about their participation in that organization, thus recieving what they consider a benefit.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

AURAPTOR

Saturday, April 18, 2009 11:51 PM

I didn't report any of my donations to the IRS, so I got no tax breaks. Stupid? Maybe. But I'll survive.

CITIZEN

Sunday, April 19, 2009 12:36 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
So would you consider donations to a local orchestra or theatre group to be charitable? Most people who donate to such organizations also attend performances, and thus receive a social benefit. For many people, their participation in such an organization is the center of their social life.

If a Church is a charity, why not?

GEEZER

Sunday, April 19, 2009 2:18 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
So would you consider donations to a local orchestra or theatre group to be charitable? Most people who donate to such organizations also attend performances, and thus receive a social benefit. For many people, their participation in such an organization is the center of their social life.

If a Church is a charity, why not?

Sorry, but given your repeated posts trying to prove that money given to churches is not charity, that's a pretty lame answer. Don't you have an opinion?

Actually, since (in the U.S., anyway) more religious folk of both liberal and conservative persuasions give to secular charities than the non-religious, perhaps the whole "religious giving isn't charity" argument is moot.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

ANTHONYT

Sunday, April 19, 2009 3:15 AM

Hello,

For my own part, if there is a theater group supported by charitable donations, designed to provide free artsy fartsy experience to the neighborhood, I would consider it a charity.

Sure, some givers doubtless attend, but the theater is open to everyone.

So, yeah, it'd totally be a charity. They exist to provide community service with funds received.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

CITIZEN

Sunday, April 19, 2009 9:45 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Sorry, but given your repeated posts trying to prove that money given to churches is not charity, that's a pretty lame answer. Don't you have an opinion?

Given my repeated statements that giving to churches isn't a charity for the same reasons you state giving to an orchestra would be, it was a pretty "lame" question. I did give you an answer, but if you need it more verbosely stated:
If you're going to call Churches charities, then yes, giving money to an orchestra or similar social activity in their collection plate, would be an act of Charity, if you don't consider Orchestras and the like charities (which I suspect the book doesn't) then how can you deem similar activities with a more religious bent charities?

For the purposes of the book, I would think the best working definition you could use would be the one I gave earlier. If you're going to open it up to include donations of churches, then to be fair, and to make sure you're not restricting your data pool to ensure a required result, you'd have to include a lot of activities that aren't considered charities by those in the everyday. That was my main point actually, if a Church is a charity, why not a whole list of other things that can be done for similar reasons. I don't know why you didn't like that answer.

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Actually, since (in the U.S., anyway) more religious folk of both liberal and conservative persuasions give to secular charities than the non-religious, perhaps the whole "religious giving isn't charity" argument is moot.

Any evidence to back that up?

CITIZEN

Sunday, April 19, 2009 9:47 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello,

For my own part, if there is a theater group supported by charitable donations, designed to provide free artsy fartsy experience to the neighborhood, I would consider it a charity.

Sure, some givers doubtless attend, but the theater is open to everyone.

So, yeah, it'd totally be a charity. They exist to provide community service with funds received.

But does the book in question consider it a charity. For all the twisting around going on here, wasn't the original question that maybe thing conservatives give to were considered charities, while those that liberals give too aren't, thereby inflating the result through a trick of language?

Geezer called it a lame answer for reasons known only to himself, but if Churches are considered charitable donations by the book, are all these social pursuits more liberal minded people indulge in that have no codified charging scheme?

Further, as I've already asked, and been ignored, isn't charity a question of intent? If the Red Cross tries to distribute food to the starving, and it's stolen by a dictator, does that mean the Red Cross is no longer a charitable organisation, but a supporter of dictators? If it's a question of intent, what does it matter how much coercion is behind the payment, if you're doing willingly? If I choose the Martial Arts centre that performs acts of charity instead of the one down the road that is cheaper, but doesn't, why isn't that an act of charity in it's own right? If I buy more expensive products from the company that protects the environment/animals whatever, because it does those things, isn't that charity? Seems to me that there's all sorts of ways to be charitable when you really look, and I rather doubt that the book takes hardly any of them into account. It seems that the charitable impulse can be born out in many ways, and the books definition which geezer has given us is just a little narrow, and maybe a tad self serving.

ANTHONYT

Sunday, April 19, 2009 5:00 PM

Hello,

For my own part,

If you can attend that martial arts class for free, then it is a charity.

If you must pay to attend, then even though they sometimes give to charity (as McDonalds does) it's not a charity.

This, of course, makes Paul Newman's (sp?) salad dressing a problem of definition for me. I'll concede that point.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

GEEZER

Sunday, April 19, 2009 7:32 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Given my repeated statements that giving to churches isn't a charity for the same reasons you state giving to an orchestra would be, it was a pretty "lame" question...For the purposes of the book, I would think the best working definition you could use would be the one I gave earlier.

To save me having to look through 180+ posts, please restate your working definition of charity.

Quote:
Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Actually, since (in the U.S., anyway) more religious folk of both liberal and conservative persuasions give to secular charities than the non-religious, perhaps the whole "religious giving isn't charity" argument is moot.

Any evidence to back that up?

To save you having to look through 180+ posts, here's the stats I cited before, from the Social Capital Community Benchmark Survey.

Religious Conservatives

Population % - 19.1
% donating to charity - 91
Average Amount - $2,367
% giving to religious causes - 88
% giving to non-religious causes - 71
% volunteering - 67
# times volunteering - 11.9
% vol. for religious causes - 62
% for non-religious causes - 60

Secular Liberals

Population % - 10.5
% donating to charity - 72
Average Amount - $741
% giving to religious causes - 22
% giving to non-religious causes - 69
% volunteering - 52
# times volunteering - 7.2
% vol. for religious causes - 51
% for non-religious causes - 47

Religious Liberals

Population % - 6.4
% donating to charity - 91
Average Amount - $2,123
% giving to religious causes - 86
% giving to non-religious causes - 72
% volunteering - 67
# times volunteering - 12.6
% vol. for religious causes - 60
% for non-religious causes - 63

Secular Conservatives

Population % - 7.3
% donating to charity - 63
Average Amount - $661
% giving to religious causes - 34
% giving to non-religious causes - 55
% volunteering - 37
# times volunteering - 4.7
% vol. for religious causes - 35
% for non-religious causes - 31

"Keep the Shiny side up"

FIRST PAGE PREV PAGE 1 2