By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General - Socialism and communism

akuma587 on 13 March 2009

You underestimate how much people hate taxes. Have you seen any uproars in the media about this? This news has been around for over a week now.

I've read a ton of articles complaining about how much Obama is spending. I don't think I have seen more than one that was that upset about this change.

I agree with you that people should be upset about this. But I see no evidence that many people are upset about this or even paid attention to this change.



We had two bags of grass, seventy-five pellets of mescaline, five sheets of high-powered blotter acid, a salt shaker half full of cocaine, a whole galaxy of multi-colored uppers, downers, screamers, laughers…Also a quart of tequila, a quart of rum, a case of beer, a pint of raw ether and two dozen amyls.  The only thing that really worried me was the ether.  There is nothing in the world more helpless and irresponsible and depraved than a man in the depths of an ether binge. –Raoul Duke

It is hard to shed anything but crocodile tears over White House speechwriter Patrick Buchanan's tragic analysis of the Nixon debacle. "It's like Sisyphus," he said. "We rolled the rock all the way up the mountain...and it rolled right back down on us...."  Neither Sisyphus nor the commander of the Light Brigade nor Pat Buchanan had the time or any real inclination to question what they were doing...a martyr, to the bitter end, to a "flawed" cause and a narrow, atavistic concept of conservative politics that has done more damage to itself and the country in less than six years than its liberal enemies could have done in two or three decades. -Hunter S. Thompson

Around the Network
Kasz216 on 13 March 2009
akuma587 said:
You underestimate how much people hate taxes. Have you seen any uproars in the media about this? This news has been around for over a week now.

I've read a ton of articles complaining about how much Obama is spending. I don't think I have seen more than one that was that upset about this change.

I agree with you that people should be upset about this. But I see no evidence that many people are upset about this or even paid attention to this change.

Yes.  A lot.  It's like the only thing i've seen on the news all week.

Also he plans to raise taxes too... nobody is talking about that.

You want something not getting news coverage.

How about Russia considering to sell Iran anti-aircraft missles.  Fairly up to date ones that would prevent preemptive bombins to stop it's nuclear program.

 



Final-Fan on 13 March 2009
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.  What makes you think the WSJ-cited figure of a 2.1% decline is massively underestimating the effect this would have? 

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. 



Tag (courtesy of fkusumot): "Please feel free -- nay, I encourage you -- to offer rebuttal."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
My advice to fanboys: Brag about stuff that's true, not about stuff that's false. Predict stuff that's likely, not stuff that's unlikely. You will be happier, and we will be happier.

"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts." - Sen. Pat Moynihan
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The old smileys: ; - ) : - ) : - ( : - P : - D : - # ( c ) ( k ) ( y ) If anyone knows the shortcut for , let me know!
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I have the most epic death scene ever in VGChartz Mafia.  Thanks WordsofWisdom! 

akuma587 on 13 March 2009

Well, frankly I've seen the exact opposite, mass uproar over spending and (to a lesser degree since it is targeted at the rich) raising taxes. I can't really verify what you have or haven't seen, so we will just agree to disagree on the media coverage.

The only really way to verify the public reaction is to just wait and see.

Fortunately, Obama is working with Russia much more than Bush did. He's more or less offered to not build the much reviled missle defense system if Russia puts pressure on Iran. Essentially he told them, if Iran doesn't get nuclear weapons, then we don't really need the missle defense system (which personally I think is a questionable investment anyways since many experts think it won't even work).



We had two bags of grass, seventy-five pellets of mescaline, five sheets of high-powered blotter acid, a salt shaker half full of cocaine, a whole galaxy of multi-colored uppers, downers, screamers, laughers…Also a quart of tequila, a quart of rum, a case of beer, a pint of raw ether and two dozen amyls.  The only thing that really worried me was the ether.  There is nothing in the world more helpless and irresponsible and depraved than a man in the depths of an ether binge. –Raoul Duke

It is hard to shed anything but crocodile tears over White House speechwriter Patrick Buchanan's tragic analysis of the Nixon debacle. "It's like Sisyphus," he said. "We rolled the rock all the way up the mountain...and it rolled right back down on us...."  Neither Sisyphus nor the commander of the Light Brigade nor Pat Buchanan had the time or any real inclination to question what they were doing...a martyr, to the bitter end, to a "flawed" cause and a narrow, atavistic concept of conservative politics that has done more damage to itself and the country in less than six years than its liberal enemies could have done in two or three decades. -Hunter S. Thompson

Kasz216 on 13 March 2009
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.

 



Around the Network
Final-Fan on 13 March 2009
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? 



Tag (courtesy of fkusumot): "Please feel free -- nay, I encourage you -- to offer rebuttal."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
My advice to fanboys: Brag about stuff that's true, not about stuff that's false. Predict stuff that's likely, not stuff that's unlikely. You will be happier, and we will be happier.

"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts." - Sen. Pat Moynihan
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The old smileys: ; - ) : - ) : - ( : - P : - D : - # ( c ) ( k ) ( y ) If anyone knows the shortcut for , let me know!
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I have the most epic death scene ever in VGChartz Mafia.  Thanks WordsofWisdom! 

akuma587 on 13 March 2009

Notably, I don't think this change Obama has proposed includes the corporate tax deduction, but someone please let me know if I am wrong about that.

Here is an interesting footnote to the discussion.

http://philanthropy.com/news/updates/index.php?id=7244

But the proposals will not necessarily change giving patterns, says Giving Institute, an association of consultants in Glenview, Ill., and its research arm, Giving USA Foundation.

They noted in a statement that 53 percent of high-net-worth donors surveyed in a 2006 study for Bank of America said their giving would stay the same, or even increase, if the tax deduction for charitable gifts fell to zero.

Giving Institute members have found that “the most important factor in how much people give is how committed they are to the purpose of the request,” the statement said. Furthermore, giving will increase when wealth is created and “if the president’s plan generates more wealth for Americans then giving will go up.”



We had two bags of grass, seventy-five pellets of mescaline, five sheets of high-powered blotter acid, a salt shaker half full of cocaine, a whole galaxy of multi-colored uppers, downers, screamers, laughers…Also a quart of tequila, a quart of rum, a case of beer, a pint of raw ether and two dozen amyls.  The only thing that really worried me was the ether.  There is nothing in the world more helpless and irresponsible and depraved than a man in the depths of an ether binge. –Raoul Duke

It is hard to shed anything but crocodile tears over White House speechwriter Patrick Buchanan's tragic analysis of the Nixon debacle. "It's like Sisyphus," he said. "We rolled the rock all the way up the mountain...and it rolled right back down on us...."  Neither Sisyphus nor the commander of the Light Brigade nor Pat Buchanan had the time or any real inclination to question what they were doing...a martyr, to the bitter end, to a "flawed" cause and a narrow, atavistic concept of conservative politics that has done more damage to itself and the country in less than six years than its liberal enemies could have done in two or three decades. -Hunter S. Thompson

Kasz216 on 13 March 2009
Final-Fan said:
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? 

2.1% is a lot of money and very significant for one

Not to mention charities already are on the ropes because of the Financial Crisis and a recent scandal in which a large number of charities had their money stolen.

Aside from that other groups have the figure much higher... near 5% like the Center on Philanthropy at Indiana University.

 



Final-Fan on 13 March 2009

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.



Tag (courtesy of fkusumot): "Please feel free -- nay, I encourage you -- to offer rebuttal."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
My advice to fanboys: Brag about stuff that's true, not about stuff that's false. Predict stuff that's likely, not stuff that's unlikely. You will be happier, and we will be happier.

"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts." - Sen. Pat Moynihan
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The old smileys: ; - ) : - ) : - ( : - P : - D : - # ( c ) ( k ) ( y ) If anyone knows the shortcut for , let me know!
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I have the most epic death scene ever in VGChartz Mafia.  Thanks WordsofWisdom! 

jv103 on 13 March 2009

Indeed. The recession will take more from donations than anything.