Churches and religious institutions are set up as effective Tax loophole for rich people and corporations to evade paying taxes. The Catholic Church is the wealthiest institution in the world. Catholic Church has strong links to Big Business and Organised crime syndicates including the Mafia. The incredible wealth of the Catholic Church is conveniently under stated.
RCTjunkie said:
|
What actually happens in the USA is the sort of seperation where Churches DO get involved with politics, and the government doesn't tax them.
This oath is also taken by the Vice President, members of the Cabinet, federal judges and all other civil and military officers and federal employees other than the President.
"The formal prayer before each legislative session of Congress, and even before days of pro formasessions, casts a light on the day that awakens faith and calls forth a nation to stand with its leaders and affirm: “In God We Trust.” But daily prayer for the Members of the House cannot end there. I ask people across this great country to join me in praying for the Members of the House of Representatives. Know the Member of your congressional district by name and raise his or her name before God each day with us here in the nation’s capital. Pray for me, also, that I may be always rooted in prayer and a good instrument for accomplishing God’s holy will here. Only by being free in the Spirit can I serve all the people here, regardless of their faith persuasion or denomination. Only by listening attentively to each person can I offer good counsel, encouragement, and gentle correction." - Chaplain of the House of Representatives.
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.[51]
| mrstickball said: The issue isn't raising taxes on the rich. That really won't help. Every time we've lowered taxes for the rich, the percentage of income taxes we've gathered from them has actually gone up. Not down. The real issue is cutting of subsidies and tax credits to the rich. Some of the richest people pay less than the middle class because they are given huge credits because of one thing or another. They have great accountants, too. In reality, if we imposed a flat tax that offered virtually no subsidies, no incentives for particular behaviors, we would likely collect a lot more, and would ensure that those not paying wouldn't be able to dodge taxes. Furthermore, fixing the tax code won't fix the entire problem. We had a $1.5 trillion deficit in the last year alone. Put it this way, under George W. Bush, our debt increased by $5 trillion dollars. Obama's increase in the deficit was 1/3rd of that in just one year. To fix it, we do have to increase revenues by reforming the tax code, but also slash every single budget that the government has. Jon Stewart's Ryan rebuttal is a tragedy, because you can't really project future revenues all that well by changing the tax code, because we've seen that it rarely follows along expected forecasts. The only known quantity in a budget are actual outlays in spending, which is far more stable. Therefore, the more responsible thing to do is to cut spending. Of course, a lot of people hate doing that, because you can tax and reduce spending on anyone, until it effects you. We've seen that happen to horrible results all over the Western world when the government has had to introduce austerity measures. And if you want information about tax rates and correlation of tax revenues:
|
Stick, by your own chart, we recieved more money from the rich in the late 90's when taxes were higher than we ever recieved from them in the 2000's
| HappySqurriel said: The US government doesn't have a revenue problem, it has a spending problem ... |
Removing the Bush Tax cuts and excess defense spending would take that down quite a bit
axt113 said:
Stick, by your own chart, we recieved more money from the rich in the late 90's when taxes were higher than we ever recieved from them in the 2000's |
The Bush tax cuts were started at the very bottom of that trough, not before. Therefore, you could also say that the tax cuts led to a significant increase in the top 1% paying their share of taxes. Having said that, the reason that taxes among the top 1% dropped so quickly was likely due to the .com bust in the late 90's which damaged the stock market and hurt a lot of wealth at the top end.
Furthermore, you can see a significant increase in taxation among the top 1% after the Reagan-era tax cuts. Thats why we have the argument of the laffer curve. Furthermore, you can also note that tax income from the bottom 95% dropped significantly during the late 90s, which shows that the tax burden really moved from the top 1% to the top 5%, which was still taxing the rich. So we are still recieving ever-more money from the rich. Pay attention to the red line, its the most important 
Back from the dead, I'm afraid.
Top 1% have more wealth than the bottom 95% of society. The 4% just below the Top 1% and above the bottom 95% are the real Middle Class. It is not called shrinking middle class for nothing.
A billionaire would be in the Top 1%. The multi-millionaires would be in the next 4% making up the remaining top 5%.
Bottom 95% of society are the working class and working poor, poor and super poor.
| numonex said: Top 1% have more wealth than the bottom 95% of society. The 4% just below the Top 1% and above the bottom 95% are the real Middle Class. It is not called shrinking middle class for nothing. A billionaire would be in the Top 1%. The multi-millionaires would be in the next 4% making up the remaining top 5%. Bottom 95% of society are the working class and working poor, poor and super poor. |
Poverty is not being able to adequately cover the essential needs of life, not being unable to have the excessive level of luxury that other people have obtained; it means being unable to cover food, clothing and shelter adequately not being unable to eat steak and lobster, wear trendy brand name clothing, and live in a McMansion. Realistically, the true poverty rate in most western developed nations is under 10% of the population; and probably closer to 0% than 10%.
HappySqurriel said:
|
I define poverty as not being a millionaire and having to work for a living. Not being able to go on four overseas trips a year, buy the latest fashion, own a collection of sports cars, eat at restaurants every day and own multiple property and share investments in a growing portfolio.
The wealthy upper class elites make a lot more from their capital investments and living life of luxury. If only I had the brains to build a company like Microsoft or Facebook and become a billionaire.
numonex said:
I define poverty as not being a millionaire and having to work for a living. Not being able to go on four overseas trips a year, buy the latest fashion, own a collection of sports cars, eat at restaurants every day and own multiple property and share investments in a growing portfolio. The wealthy upper class elites make a lot more from their capital investments and living life of luxury. If only I had the brains to build a company like Microsoft or Facebook and become a billionaire. |
So you define poverty as "being an individual in a society with sustainable consumption habits"?
Except for a handful of athletes, rock-stars and celebrities who will (likely) be bankrupt after their careers are over, almost no one (including the wealthy you rant about) lives a lifestyle that you associate with not being poor.
About Us |
Terms of Use |
Privacy Policy |
Advertise |
Staff |
Contact
Display As Desktop
Display As Mobile
© 2006-2024 VGChartz Ltd. All rights reserved.
