Socialism and communism

[Final-Fan]

Kasz216 said:

Final-Fan said:

Kasz216 said:

Final-Fan said:

Kasz216 said:

Final-Fan said:
Nope, hadn't heard. My news exposure is ... irregular.

Now that I've enlightened myself, I want to make sure we're on the same page: it would cap the percentage of the money saved on the deductions (at $280 per $1000 as opposed to currently up to $350 per $1000), not a cap like "no donations past $1 million are deductible" as I had presumed based on what you said. I'm not sure if you thought it was something else, or just wrote it wrong, or possibly you'll be able to convince me that I misinterpreted you.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123621392108135233.html

And I seriously, seriously doubt this was proposed with the GOAL of taking money away from charities, which seems to be what you are saying. That would only be a probable side effect, admittedly a side effect that I think the administration should not risk. (And I think I'd oppose this even if it wouldn't affect giving, on principle.)

While it suggests 4 Billion.   Obama's figures suggest higher if you'll notice how much he thinks it will gain him.

That's exactly the goal though to take from charities.

It's win win.

Either people donate the same and we get more money from them.  Or people donate less and we get a lot more money from them. 

The secodnary thing seems to be the case due to how much more he plans to get from this plan.

No, the revenue from reducing tax breaks doesn't DIRECTLY take ANYTHING at all from the charities, so your "but Obama expects more revenue difference than that" fails as well as the "exactly the goal" unless you find a smoking gun.  All you have presented right now is conspiracy theory. 

What is your evidence that his expected revenue is based on people giving sgnificantly less to charity?

By the same way you could argue that by stopping water from reaching thirsty people you aren't directly making them die of thirst.

This proposal will hurt charties and is penalizing people for their charitable contributions.

How can you be all right with that?

It's all in the numbers.  He expects it to produce at least 180 billion dollars.

Why the hell should people have to pay any taxes on money they donate to charity anyway?  They donated it to charity.

No, you could argue that you're making thirsty people walk a little further to reach the water.  I guess one might die of thirst if he's so weak he can't walk the extra 5 feet.

180 billion dollars in TAXES that are not taken OUT of the contributions.

I'm NOT in favor of donations being taxed, which is why I said I'd oppose it.  But you're making this out to be something monstrous that it isn't.

How is it a little further?  Funding that used to be there won't be..

And how many charities do you think will "die" because of an overall 2.1% decline in giving due to the new tax?  Or alternatively (as in my edit above), what makes you think the WSJ-cited figure of a 2.1% decline is massively underestimating the effect this would have? 

Unless you do dispute that estimate, I don't see how you can justify using 'DEATH' in your analogy instead of 'a small hardship'. 

Also, again, what actual basis do you have for the claim that this is a deliberate effort to starve private charities, instead of simply an ill-considered way of gaining revenue for the government?