Socialism and communism

[Kasz216]

BTFeather55 said:

Kasz216 said:

BTFeather55 said:

Kasz216 said:

BTFeather55 said:

Kasz216 said:

Final-Fan said:
I understand that it's not small potatoes, but that doesn't mean you aren't blowing this completely out of proportion and inventing/promoting conspiracy theories.

Take your time with any reply as I'm off to work.

I think it's easier if you go through the math of what Obama wants and go through how this would work.

Normally if I were a rich guy and i were to donate 1,000 dollars to charity.  I would no longer have to pay income tax on that 1,000 dollars.

Now Obama wants to change the law so that if you donate 1,000 dollars to charity you have to pay 100 dollars per 1,000 donated.

So for every 1,000 donated to charity, the government makes 100 dollars.  For every 1,000 dollars not donated to charity that would have been... the government makes 350.

Now... someone may want to double check my math since i'm tired... however.

 

He expects this to generate 18 billion per year.

If Charity giving were to drop by 4 billion.  That would be a gain of 1.4 Billion.

Four Billion/Onethousands X 350 = 1.4 Billion

So... Ignoring the fact that people will give much less in 09 then 06.

That gives us around 200 Billion total as far as charitable giving.

Assuming that it was all donated by that tax bracket... that would be 20 Billion.

So either he expects more of a loss to charitable giving... the top tax bracket gives an inordinante amount of money away to charity.

18 Billion - 1.4 Billion =  16.6 Billion.

So he's over by 3.4 billion.

So that would mean the rich donate 83% of all money given to charity?

With the 17% left being split among all the lower tax brackets AND corporations?  (Or just the tax brackets if we assume they were talking about just personal giving.)

That can't be right.  The number shrinks even below 17 when you realize that the number will actually be lower in projections.

 

Edit: Actually I screwed up and put 250 instead of 280.  Making the situation look even worse for Obama's projections.  Since instead of 100 per donated 1000 it would be $70.

Making from that 200 million a gain of 14 billion.  Combining for a grand total of 15.5 Billion.  If all money was given by the top bracket.

I mean... I don't see where Obama is getting his numbers here if he expects a mere 2% drop.  Unless you can see a flaw in my math.

 

 

     If you're a rich person and complaining about the fact that you have to pay $100.00 out of every $1,000.00 you donate to charity in taxes, then there's something wrong with you in the first place.  That's only 10% of the amount you donated.  If Obama was asking them to pay 50% or even 25% in taxes, that could be something to complain about.  But trying to complain about just 10% of it?  What is the rich person's name, Ebeneezer Scrooge? 

Yes.  Cause Ebenezer Scrooge really gave tons of money to charity.

Thanks again for completly ignoring the body of the arguement and the statistical numbers to make a completly useless statement.

It basically amounts to a 70 dollar tax to donate to charity.  The government is basically taxing someone for donating to charity and you don't have a problem with this.

It's a slap in the face to those who donate to charity.  So yeah.  I think people might just get frustrated and stop donating. 

So must Obama considering his sky high projections for how many billions this should bring in.

     You must not have read the first part of A Christmas Carol because Scrooge only donated anything to the poor after he was visited by a few ghosts one night.  I didn't ignore the body of your message.  You said that the rich were going to stop donating to charity because they would have to pay 10% of that money to taxes.  If 10% going to taxes (which will further benefit the poor under Obama's plan) cuts down on the rich's donating to charity, then that just goes to show that they are not very charitable as you always try to say that they are.  I mean WWJD?  It's funny how you get p*ssed if someone ignores what you say when when everytime calls you on the bs you're spouting, you go on to say that person's comments were useless.

That was sarcasm... duh.

Your suggesting that someone who gives money to charity with no benefit to themselves is greedy because they also don't want to pay a  7% premium on top of that.

I'm sorry you don't see that as a slap in the face?  People donate to charity for a reason.  Government is ineffective and charities are more effective.

You do know you can donate money to the government right?  If you think your not paying enough in taxes... feel free to do so.

 

     I would if I was making over $250,000.00 a year.  As it is, I stand to benefit from Obama's social programs.  When I was working at a fast food restaurant and paying for company health insurance that wouldn't come anywhere near paying for blood work, a catscan, and a colonoscopy, I really could have used some subsidized government healthcare.  Mccain's plan was going to provide for a $2,000.00 tax credit for health insurance, but would that really have covered anything serious?  And, it is difficult to pay $4.00 a gallon for gas, drive eighty miles to work each day, for just eight dollars a day, then buy healthcare, videogames, take a hot chick to a movie.  If the government wants to help me out with all that I'm fine with it.  Bush sure didn't seem like he was very interested in doing so.

 

I spend $100 dollars a month for my healthcare and it provides near major medical plan benefits.  It would cover all that.  The trick is to shop around and find a healthcare provider that is focusing on your particular group.

Once again.  Gini Coeeficient under Bush stayed virtually the same.  Under presidents like Clinton it raised drastically.

Believe it or not.  Bush was the best President for the poor when it came to distribution of wealth... you can look it up.  It's a fact seriously.

Where the hell do you live that gas is $4.00 a gallon currently?