Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
I already said on another thread that you need to eliminate all charity deductions and tax all charities. The Super Rich have perverted the charity deductions to the point where they never have taxable income after adjustments.From books long out of print. I would recommend a book by Ferdinand Lundburg called "The Rich and The Super Rich" for a starter. He names the families and explains how they avoid paying taxes. You can find used copies on Amazon.
That book will document 60 families with trillions in hidden wealth each? This is such an easy solution. Why then do you not advocate a special tax on them while leaving everyone else alone?
For example, when Nelson Rockefeller was appointed Vice President, he made his tax return public. On a 7 figure income he had not one penny in taxable income. The Super Rich simply donate money, art, property, stocks, etc., to themselves as heads of their charities and get tax deductions for it.
Cons make resale ol tried argument.
"take all the rich money and it still won't cover the debt"
Ok, since no one is proposing that...he's beating a strawman
Here is what some are saying: raise taxes, cut spending
That's it..
Oh the poor poor billionaires.
One cannot help but feel sorry for them.
They're treated so unfairly!
That's a very valid point you raise, that you are scoffing at some manufactured sympathy for billionaires. Where in a discussion about proper means to fund the government do that emotion and your emotional reaction fit?
You sure this isn't about envy?
That says nothing about how little people of little means pay. It merely highlights how little they have. It says reams about the incredible amount of money that has been redistributed to the rich.
They say that the top 20% ( and most of this is in the top 10%) of the people now have 3 trillion bucks lying around fallow, doing nothing but lying in unproductive accounts. Meanwhile their taxes have been slashed, while they have produced none of the promised jobs and benefits.
The corporations, who the link says were sucked dry, have 2 trillion in equally fallow, unproductive accounts while their profits are at all time highs.
It is difficult to "suck dry" via taxes when taxes are not paid. Over 60% of fortune 500 companies pay no federal tax at all. A great many of these receive subsidies and/or refunds.
For example, Exxon Mobile made 30 BILLION in profits, paid no federal while receiving millions in refunds. (And in subsidies) They are just the worst of the offenders.
Meanwhile middle class income is steadily shrinking.
Forgive me if I cannot find reason to cry for the wealthy.
Cons make resale ol tried argument.
"take all the rich money and it still won't cover the debt"
Ok, since no one is proposing that...he's beating a strawman
Here is what some are saying: raise taxes, cut spending
That's it..
Cons make resale ol tried argument.
"take all the rich money and it still won't cover the debt"
Ok, since no one is proposing that...he's beating a strawman
Here is what some are saying: raise taxes, cut spending
That's it..
I find it amazing how the non-rich in the US will gut their own personal financies to support the rich who are totally unwilling to do the same for them.
Oh the poor poor billionaires.
One cannot help but feel sorry for them.
They're treated so unfairly!
That's a very valid point you raise, that you are scoffing at some manufactured sympathy for billionaires. Where in a discussion about proper means to fund the government do that emotion and your emotional reaction fit?
You sure this isn't about envy?
Are you sure your position isn't about STOCKHOLM SYNDROME?
How would having "charities" pay taxes like everybody else get rid of them? Are you saying that ALL the American people are only generous because they get a tax deduction like the Blue-Bloods??? CON$ have a very low opinion of the American people!!!!I already said on another thread that you need to eliminate all charity deductions and tax all charities. The Super Rich have perverted the charity deductions to the point where they never have taxable income after adjustments.That book will document 60 families with trillions in hidden wealth each? This is such an easy solution. Why then do you not advocate a special tax on them while leaving everyone else alone?
For example, when Nelson Rockefeller was appointed Vice President, he made his tax return public. On a 7 figure income he had not one penny in taxable income. The Super Rich simply donate money, art, property, stocks, etc., to themselves as heads of their charities and get tax deductions for it.
And there's the rub, get rid of all charities because of a few families.
How would having "charities" pay taxes like everybody else get rid of them? Are you saying that ALL the American people are only generous because they get a tax deduction like the Blue-Bloods??? CON$ have a very low opinion of the American people!!!!I already said on another thread that you need to eliminate all charity deductions and tax all charities. The Super Rich have perverted the charity deductions to the point where they never have taxable income after adjustments.
For example, when Nelson Rockefeller was appointed Vice President, he made his tax return public. On a 7 figure income he had not one penny in taxable income. The Super Rich simply donate money, art, property, stocks, etc., to themselves as heads of their charities and get tax deductions for it.
And there's the rub, get rid of all charities because of a few families.
Some people can never understand the truth no matter how many times it is shown to them.Cons make resale ol tried argument.
"take all the rich money and it still won't cover the debt"
Ok, since no one is proposing that...he's beating a strawman
Here is what some are saying: raise taxes, cut spending
That's it..
Some people just can't see the big picture behind an intentional argumentum ad absurdium. The point is that how would raising taxes a few percent magically fix the problem when wholescale confiscation would barely cover the shortfall, nevermind the total budget.
One thing left out of whittle/iowahawks presentation is local taxes, people forget about those as well.
Your MessiahRushie would be proud of how you dodged any explanation of how taxing charities like everybody else would get rid of the honest ones, just like he programmed you to do.How would having "charities" pay taxes like everybody else get rid of them? Are you saying that ALL the American people are only generous because they get a tax deduction like the Blue-Bloods??? CON$ have a very low opinion of the American people!!!!And there's the rub, get rid of all charities because of a few families.
So do progressives, seeing that they use the government to force people to pay, via taxes, for programs that used to be handled via charities. Instead of doing the grunt work of raising money for programs they would like to see implemented, they get the government to do thier dirty work for them.
That's a very valid point you raise, that you are scoffing at some manufactured sympathy for billionaires. Where in a discussion about proper means to fund the government do that emotion and your emotional reaction fit?
You sure this isn't about envy?
Are you sure your position isn't about STOCKHOLM SYNDROME?
Sympathize with my captors? I don't. I just see the effects of what happens when there is no incentive to invest.
How would having "charities" pay taxes like everybody else get rid of them? Are you saying that ALL the American people are only generous because they get a tax deduction like the Blue-Bloods??? CON$ have a very low opinion of the American people!!!!I already said on another thread that you need to eliminate all charity deductions and tax all charities. The Super Rich have perverted the charity deductions to the point where they never have taxable income after adjustments.
For example, when Nelson Rockefeller was appointed Vice President, he made his tax return public. On a 7 figure income he had not one penny in taxable income. The Super Rich simply donate money, art, property, stocks, etc., to themselves as heads of their charities and get tax deductions for it.
And there's the rub, get rid of all charities because of a few families.
Some people can never understand the truth no matter how many times it is shown to them.Cons make resale ol tried argument.
"take all the rich money and it still won't cover the debt"
Ok, since no one is proposing that...he's beating a strawman
Here is what some are saying: raise taxes, cut spending
That's it..
Some people just can't see the big picture behind an intentional argumentum ad absurdium. The point is that how would raising taxes a few percent magically fix the problem when wholescale confiscation would barely cover the shortfall, nevermind the total budget.
One thing left out of whittle/iowahawks presentation is local taxes, people forget about those as well.
The truly wealthy are wealthy because they understand the subtle difference between OWNERSHIP and CONTROL. Slick Willie Whittless made a sucker out of you by only "confiscating" what the Super Rich "own," which is a tiny fraction of what they control.
Again using Rockefeller as an example, since he perfected the scam.
When Standard Oil was broken up, on paper Rockefeller only owned 25% of the company. Some stockholders then tried to oust him from the board, but Rockefeller voted 60% of the proxies. He controlled much more than what he owned.
Your MessiahRushie would be proud of how you dodged any explanation of how taxing charities like everybody else would get rid of the honest ones, just like he programmed you to do.How would having "charities" pay taxes like everybody else get rid of them? Are you saying that ALL the American people are only generous because they get a tax deduction like the Blue-Bloods??? CON$ have a very low opinion of the American people!!!!
So do progressives, seeing that they use the government to force people to pay, via taxes, for programs that used to be handled via charities. Instead of doing the grunt work of raising money for programs they would like to see implemented, they get the government to do thier dirty work for them.
Good job!
Are you sure your position isn't about STOCKHOLM SYNDROME?
Sympathize with my captors? I don't. I just see the effects of what happens when there is no incentive to invest.
Unless you are of the INVESTMENT CLASS, that is to say if your daily bread does not come from your or your families LABOR?
Voting for the neocons is voting against your own economic interests.
I cannot dumb it down for you any more than that.
First of all, that $95,000 would be an operating expense for a true charity and not taxed. But the Super Rich do not give away 95% of what they take in like a true charity. Their endowment grows and grows and only the minimum amount needed to qualify as a charity given each year.How would having "charities" pay taxes like everybody else get rid of them? Are you saying that ALL the American people are only generous because they get a tax deduction like the Blue-Bloods??? CON$ have a very low opinion of the American people!!!!And there's the rub, get rid of all charities because of a few families.
It's not the tax deduction of the contributor that's the issue, most charitable contributions are made by people who either do not itemize or are above the federal deduction limitations. It's the micromanaging and expensive tax code on the operation that is the issue. If I receive $100,000 in contributions for my non-profit charity and I spend $95,000 on goods and services for my cause that's $95,000 going towards that under the existing policy. If it is treated as a business then there is no mechanism for considering those expenses as anything other than non-deductible gifts. Also, any enterprise that size and above would require that the staff take a salary and pay associated taxes with it.
In Florida that means the $95,000 would be considered income. Since the IRS assumes nobody works for free I'd have to take a $25,000 salary (which I could of course then just give to the same cause). That works out to $17,500 ((95,000-25,000)*.25) in federal corporate income tax, $3825 (((25,000*.062)+(25,000*.0145))*2) in payroll tax, $8250 (25,000*.33) in personal federal income tax, and $3850 in state corporate income tax.
Assuming I gave all my after tax salary from this entity away, we end up with a net of $61,575 going towards the cause. A 5% overhead rate at that level is efficient and people are moved to contribute knowing that just about all of their money is going towards a specific cause. Increasing that rate to 38% does not provide that same impetus especially towards small charities with excellent efficiency.
Changing tax policy to that end would not raise more money for the federal government, it would simply regulate those charitable organizations out of existence. Schemes to get around that by rolling up charitable activities into large centrally managed companies able to manipulate operations to avoid taxes would arise. These are horribly inefficient but the demand by people to give would still be there. All it means is that less money would actually be spent on worthwhile causes.
Of course you do, just as sure as when CON$ say all Libs parrot MediaMatters or the Daily Kos. You are a perfect example of how CON$ can dish it out but cry like babies when it comes back in kind.Your MessiahRushie would be proud of how you dodged any explanation of how taxing charities like everybody else would get rid of the honest ones, just like he programmed you to do.So do progressives, seeing that they use the government to force people to pay, via taxes, for programs that used to be handled via charities. Instead of doing the grunt work of raising money for programs they would like to see implemented, they get the government to do thier dirty work for them.
Good job!
How many times do I have to say this, I dont listen to Limbaugh. On my drive home I either listen to 101.9 (rock) or the FAT FUCK (Mike Francesa). I havent listened to either hannity or rush in years.
It seems I can form these opinions, ALL BY MYSELF, which must be a troubling concept for you, as you seem to think anyone who disagrees with you is a slobbering rush-bot. That is one of the crucial mistakes of debating, not being able to place a valid reason you opponent has a view opposite of yours.
And I wasnt answering the charity part, I was answering your quip about conservatives having a low opinion of people. My point is progressives do to, seeing that they feel the need to use government to force people to pay for the social programs they want.
Reading is fundemental, or in your case, not so much.
