Tax us more, say wealthy Europeans

[CMatt25]

Wow. Did you really write that? I can’t help but wonder if you understand that a tax deduction does not fully reimburse you for the charitable expense being deducted. There is no such thing as “writing it off” in the way that liberals think. In other words, donating to a charity still costs you a lot more money than you get back by the deduction. Therefore, nobody changes their mind about donating to a charity because they lost a tax deduction or it becomes tedious to document. They simply donate LESS so they can pay the taxes!

Yes I did and yes I do. Someone posted about folks not getting their deduction. If not getting a deduction means the rich decide to give less as you state, when they can afford to give more and still pay their taxes, then I will say it again. That speak volumes about their true priorities if they give less because they don’t get a tax deduction.

 

[Carlan]

Yes I did and yes I do. Someone posted about folks not getting their deduction. If not getting a deduction means the rich decide to give less as you state, when they can afford to give more and still pay their taxes, then I will say it again. That speak volumes about their true priorities if they give less because they don’t get a tax deduction.

It’s true Matt, they just simply can’t accept it:shrug:greed is at the bottom of all evil.
Whats mine is mine and what is yours is mine.
I’ll take all the protection the government is there to give me , police , fire, education , military protection, natural disaster relief, just name it,
And you better not give any of my taxes to that unfortunate poor old man on his last legs or the handicapped 35year old man or women who can’t earn a living and is so poor he has nothing of his own not even a window to throw it out of.

Sure the money is there to provide for them from our taxes. But it gets siphoned off before it gets to the bottom ,by? only God knows who and how!

Yep, I’ll dole out a bit more, but only if there is something in it for me!

Peace, Carlan

Yep, I’ll dole out a bit more, but only if there is something in it for me!

 

[Ridgerunner]

It’s true Matt, they just simply can’t accept it:shrug:greed is at the bottom of all evil.
Whats mine is mine and what is yours is mine.
I’ll take all the protection the government is there to give me , police , fire, education , military protection, natural disaster relief, just name it,
And you better not give any of my taxes to that unfortunate poor old man on his last legs or the handicapped 35year old man or women who can’t earn a living and is so poor he has nothing of his own not even a window to throw it out of.

Sure the money is there to provide for them from our taxes. But it gets siphoned off before it gets to the bottom ,by? only God knows who and how!

Yep, I’ll dole out a bit more, but only if there is something in it for me!

Peace, Carlan

Yep, I’ll dole out a bit more, but only if there is something in it for me!

This might have more persuasive power if the government had any idea who the poor old man on his last legs actually is.But it doesn’t. It just gives money to categories of people who might be in real need and who might not.

And what about millionaires over the age of 65? The government gives them money and nearly free healthcare besides.

I don’t think anybody has a problem with paying for police, fire, army or the old man on his last legs. What I think people have the problem with is vote buying by imposing increased taxes on one segment of the middle class to give it to another segment of the middle class. That’s where the big money is.

 

[Carlan]

This might have more persuasive power if the government had any idea who the poor old man on his last legs actually is.But it doesn’t. It just gives money to categories of people who might be in real need and who might not.

And what about millionaires over the age of 65? The government gives them money and nearly free healthcare besides.

I don’t think anybody has a problem with paying for police, fire, army or the old man on his last legs. What I think people have the problem with is vote buying by imposing increased taxes on one segment of the middle class to give it to another segment of the middle class. That’s where the big money is.

So what do you do my friend, what is the answer, You were in government what is the answer and how is it brought about, there are so many ideas and answers , no one seems to listen anyway even when answers are staring them in the face. I’m just a basically educated peon, and so I probably shouldn’t even be here putting in my worthless two cents worth. P eace, Carlan

 

[Ridgerunner]

So what do you do my friend, what is the answer, You were in government what is the answer and how is it brought about, there are so many ideas and answers , no one seems to listen anyway even when answers are staring them in the face. I’m just a basically educated peon, and so I probably shouldn’t even be here putting in my worthless two cents worth. P eace, Carlan

I’m sure I’m no better educated than you are.

But if I could determine the government’s next moves in the “social justice” realm, I would immediately means test both social security retirement and Medicare. There is absolutely no justification in taxing wage earners for the benefit of people who don’t need those programs. Those are the big ticket items when it comes to transfer payments.

I would make SS “pay as you go”, officially. It is in fact, at present, but if its receipts ever exceed its expenditures, congress spends the money on other things and creates additional liabilities for earners when it does so.

I get the federal government out of education entirely. It is a corrupting influence on all recipients, including Catholic colleges, and has not produced any demonstrable improvement in educational results. It also violates subsidiarity.

I would repeal Obamacare. It isn’t what the left wanted. It isn’t what the right wanted. It isn’t what the middle wanted. It isn’t even what Obama wanted. It’s a middle class subsidy, to be paid largely by the middle class, and is already politicized; witness Sebelius’ declaration of “no co-pays” for contraception and abortion. Witness HHC’s declaration that Catholic organizations have to pay for contraception coverage. We’ll be seeing more of that. A lot more. It’s an expensive and already corrupt program.

I would immediately raise the benefit for SSI. It’s scandalously inadequate and is the resource for the poorest of the poor; the disabled or aged needy who cannot help themselves.

I would look with a very jaundiced eye at the bureaucracy/benefit ratio of every government transfer payment program. I would cut or eliminate those programs that primarily benefit the middle class by way of transfer payments.

I would turn education loans back over to the private sector. Why use government money for what private money was willing to do?

I would remove all barriers to direct provision of services by charitable organizations. The government presently seems to be in a war against that (and the Church, really). It is quite likely that charitable organizations know their clientele much better than the government does. They are definitely more efficient.

I would terminate tobacco subsidies and the corn ethanol program. I would most likely terminate cotton subsidies as well. Since 40% of our soybean crop goes to China and is increasing, and since most tobacco and cotton land can raise soybeans, I see no reason not to do it. Since, for the first time this year, more corn goes to ethanol than to food or feed, I see no sense in making Americans or anyone else pay at the supermarket to subsidize corn ethanol. Maybe Miscantheus Gigantius (the latest biofuel program) which can be grown on marginal land, will provide economical biofuel without reducing the food supply, and maybe it won’t. (I’m dubious myself) But just wait and see what meat is going to cost you in 2012 with almost half the soybeans going to China and most corn going to ethanol. You truly are not going to believe it.

I would immediately remove ideologically-motivated barriers to drilling for petroleum. I would get the EPA out of the “cap and trade” business. I would repeal this administration’s recent restrictive regulations on coal-fired energy plants.

I would leave tax rates where they are, at least for the foreseeable future.

I would cut into the “muscle” if I had to in order to get deficits down. Deficits are more responsible for the loss of jobs to foreign producers than are the Chinese or the Saudis. If American money in foreign hands had to be spent on American goods and services instead of on American debt, we would see a lot of jobs created; better paying jobs than marginal jobs like textile milling jobs that are probably better being overseas. Let’s give the Chinese and the Saudis no place to go with their money other than to buy American bulldozers, machine tools and other products where the wages are higher.

If I also ran the USCCB, I would require that all expenditures by it also go to Catholic charities that provide direct services. Never again would I give a dime to secular or political organizations, or to charities that do not provide direct, tangible services to the truly needy.

I expect I could go on all night.

Oh yes, I would do everything in my power to get rid of “abortion on demand”. It has demonstrably reduced the ratio of workers to non-workers, discourages “economic fatherhood” and is going to get us into a “demographic winter” eventually, just as it will in Europe in about 2030, and is almost certainly non-reversible there as it is in Japan for certain, and probably in China as well.

So, at least for now, those are my notions, whatever they’re worth. I guess I’ll have to add that they are all consistent with the teachings of the Church.

 

[Carlan]

:blushlease excuse my bad, It’s been a long hot summer and the cabin fever is beginning to take it’s toll , sorry. Peace, Carlan

 

[Saburo]

Yes I did and yes I do. Someone posted about folks not getting their deduction. If not getting a deduction means the rich decide to give less as you state, when they can afford to give more and still pay their taxes, then I will say it again. That speak volumes about their true priorities if they give less because they don’t get a tax deduction.

1. How did you extrapolate EVERYONE not getting their deduction to the rich being too greedy to give as much as they can afford? The complaint about the new IRS requirement is that EVERYONE loses their deduction for cash contributions. Do you need a sketch to understand how liberal hatred of Christianity hurts the poor by depriving them of the much greater contribution made by the much larger mass of middle-income charitable donors who cannot afford a large donation without an income tax deduction?
2. How do you know that the rich are not already giving as much to charity as they can? Is it because they are not yet as poor as the very poor they are trying to help? If that is the case, why are you not giving everything you have until you are as equally poor? If that is not the case, what is the exact amount of wealth a person should be able to retain in order not to incur your contempt? A qualitative response is an insufficient response, as there are a fair number of wealthy individuals who would like to avoid your scorn, but are baffled by the opaque logic of liberal math and economics. Feel free to round your answer, but do please come up with a number or quit hating rich people for not following your poorly defined rules.

 

[Carlan]

I’m sure I’m no better educated than you are.

But if I could determine the government’s next moves in the “social justice” realm, I would immediately means test both social security retirement and Medicare. There is absolutely no justification in taxing wage earners for the benefit of people who don’t need those programs. Those are the big ticket items when it comes to transfer payments.

I would make SS “pay as you go”, officially. It is in fact, at present, but if its receipts ever exceed its expenditures, congress spends the money on other things and creates additional liabilities for earners when it does so.

I get the federal government out of education entirely. It is a corrupting influence on all recipients, including Catholic colleges, and has not produced any demonstrable improvement in educational results. It also violates subsidiarity.

I would repeal Obamacare. It isn’t what the left wanted. It isn’t what the right wanted. It isn’t what the middle wanted. It isn’t even what Obama wanted. It’s a middle class subsidy, to be paid largely by the middle class, and is already politicized; witness Sebelius’ declaration of “no co-pays” for contraception and abortion. Witness HHC’s declaration that Catholic organizations have to pay for contraception coverage. We’ll be seeing more of that. A lot more. It’s an expensive and already corrupt program.

I would immediately raise the benefit for SSI. It’s scandalously inadequate and is the resource for the poorest of the poor; the disabled or aged needy who cannot help themselves.

I would look with a very jaundiced eye at the bureaucracy/benefit ratio of every government transfer payment program. I would cut or eliminate those programs that primarily benefit the middle class by way of transfer payments.

I would turn education loans back over to the private sector. Why use government money for what private money was willing to do?

I would remove all barriers to direct provision of services by charitable organizations. The government presently seems to be in a war against that (and the Church, really). It is quite likely that charitable organizations know their clientele much better than the government does. They are definitely more efficient.

I would terminate tobacco subsidies and the corn ethanol program. I would most likely terminate cotton subsidies as well. Since 40% of our soybean crop goes to China and is increasing, and since most tobacco and cotton land can raise soybeans, I see no reason not to do it. Since, for the first time this year, more corn goes to ethanol than to food or feed, I see no sense in making Americans or anyone else pay at the supermarket to subsidize corn ethanol. Maybe Miscantheus Gigantius (the latest biofuel program) which can be grown on marginal land, will provide economical biofuel without reducing the food supply, and maybe it won’t. (I’m dubious myself) But just wait and see what meat is going to cost you in 2012 with almost half the soybeans going to China and most corn going to ethanol. You truly are not going to believe it.

I would immediately remove ideologically-motivated barriers to drilling for petroleum. I would get the EPA out of the “cap and trade” business. I would repeal this administration’s recent restrictive regulations on coal-fired energy plants.

I would leave tax rates where they are, at least for the foreseeable future.

I would cut into the “muscle” if I had to in order to get deficits down. Deficits are more responsible for the loss of jobs to foreign producers than are the Chinese or the Saudis. If American money in foreign hands had to be spent on American goods and services instead of on American debt, we would see a lot of jobs created; better paying jobs than marginal jobs like textile milling jobs that are probably better being overseas. Let’s give the Chinese and the Saudis no place to go with their money other than to buy American bulldozers, machine tools and other products where the wages are higher.

If I also ran the USCCB, I would require that all expenditures by it also go to Catholic charities that provide direct services. Never again would I give a dime to secular or political organizations, or to charities that do not provide direct, tangible services to the truly needy.

I expect I could go on all night.

Oh yes, I would do everything in my power to get rid of “abortion on demand”. It has demonstrably reduced the ratio of workers to non-workers, discourages “economic fatherhood” and is going to get us into a “demographic winter” eventually, just as it will in Europe in about 2030, and is almost certainly non-reversible there as it is in Japan for certain, and probably in China as well.

So, at least for now, those are my notions, whatever they’re worth. I guess I’ll have to add that they are all consistent with the teachings of the Church.

Thanks for your response RR it was interesting. I actually agree with about a half of what you would do…maybe a scosh more:shrug: I’m no good at the debate so I’ll leave it at that for now.
I do like to read your posts though and always look out for them,even when I don’t always agree. Have a great Labor Day! Peace, Carlan

 

[stinkcat_14]

How do you know that the rich are not already giving as much to charity as they can?

Actually, I think by definition most of us in developed countries are not giving as much to charity as we can. There are plenty of things that we could all choose to live without.

 

[colmywaykurtz]

So if the wealthy do come to the realization they have more money than they need why dont they give some of it away? There are millions of great charities out there, why do you need someone to take it from you?

Perhaps they know something we don’t—maybe a lot of charitable institutions in Europe are rackets. It could be that the government actually WOULD be more even-handed in distributing the largesse.

 

[Saburo]

Actually, I think by definition most of us in developed countries are not giving as much to charity as we can. There are plenty of things that we could all choose to live without.

Quite likely true, but in the context of my question in response to his comment, your observation is irrelevant. We still do not know what that magic number is defining the level of wealth below which a person not in poverty may escape the scorn of liberals for being “too wealthy.”

At what net worth does the hatred for the rich begin? How much can one own before being subjected to demands for punitive taxation and charitable contributions far beyond what anyone else gives without benefit of tax deductions? I need hard numbers to understand the liberal mindset. I want to plan my financial future so that I never fall into the boiling cauldron of leftist contempt that one risks by working hard and getting ahead. It’s a simple question: How much is too much? What’s the number?

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

Jesus of course spoke about the difficulty the rich will have in getting into heaven. And at least this group of rich Europeans say they have more than they need. And are willing to pay more in taxes so the poor are not hurt as much by budget cuts and thus not forced to sacrifice disproportionately.

“None of us are in Buffett’s or Bettencourt’s league,” said the founder, Dieter Lehmkuhl, a retired doctor with assets of €1.5m (£1.3m). “We’re a broad church – teachers, doctors, entrepreneurs. Most of our wealth is inherited. But we have more money than we need.”

“I would say to Merkel that the answer to sorting out Germany’s financial problems, our public debt, is not to bring in cuts, which will disproportionately hit poorer people, but to tax the wealthy more,” said Lehmkuhl. “We are always hearing about savings packages, but never tax rises. Yet tax increases are a way out of this mess. That’s where the money is: rich people.”

“Something needs to be done to stop the gap between rich and poor getting even bigger.”

guardian.co.uk/world/2011/aug/29/tax-us-more-say-wealthy-europeans

Taxes =/= Charity. Jesus requires us to be charitable with our resources. Giving it to the government does not accomplish this. it would be better for them to give that money to causes that directly contribute to the suffering of the poor and disaffected. All they are succeeding in doing is making some politician (s) more powerful.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

Perhaps they know something we don’t—maybe a lot of charitable institutions in Europe are rackets. It could be that the government actually WOULD be more even-handed in distributing the largesse.

Ya… no. That doesn’t happen. You cannot divorce government control from political control. Once that money is in the hands of the government, some politician will hold it hostage as leverage to gain more power. That’s how government works.

 

[CMatt25]

1. How did you extrapolate EVERYONE not getting their deduction to the rich being too greedy to give as much as they can afford?

Do you need a sketch to understand how liberal hatred of Christianity…?

How do you know that the rich are not already giving as much to charity as they can? Is it because they are not yet as poor as the very poor they are trying to help? If that is the case, why are you not giving everything you have until you are as equally poor? If that is not the case, what is the exact amount of wealth a person should be able to retain in order not to incur your contempt? A qualitative response is an insufficient response, as there are a fair number of wealthy individuals who would like to avoid your scorn, but are baffled by the opaque logic of liberal math and economics. Feel free to round your answer, but do please come up with a number or quit hating rich people for not following your poorly defined rules.

Uhh… oh yes. Because you said “they simply donate LESS so they can pay the taxes!” And while I understood your concept of “everyone”, we are talking about the rich here.

No I don’t need your sketch as I am a liberal who does not hate Christianity. Nor do I hate anyone.

Well speaking for myself I was fine as a starting place with the numbers which were already discussed in American politcal circles requiring those above a quarter of a million dollars a year to go back to paying the percentages they were in 90s. But if I’d have had to go up to half a million a year or a million I could have compromised at this point.

Hope that helps. But whether it does or not, God bless!

 

[colmywaykurtz]

Ya… no. That doesn’t happen. You cannot divorce government control from political control. Once that money is in the hands of the government, some politician will hold it hostage as leverage to gain more power. That’s how government works.

Hold on now, Scott, before you get that libertarian dander goin’ full blast. I’m not suggesting government’s virtue quotient has RISEN in this little scenario. I’m suggesting the charitable institutions’ quotient may have SUNK.

What was once lower may have, paradoxically, become the higher. What was once higher may be retracing Dante and Virgil’s steps now.

 

[gamewell45]

How about the fat rich bankers repent of their sin of usury?

If the “fat” rich bankers were not overwieght, would that make a difference in your position?

 

[Ridgerunner]

Quite likely true, but in the context of my question in response to his comment, your observation is irrelevant. We still do not know what that magic number is defining the level of wealth below which a person not in poverty may escape the scorn of liberals for being “too wealthy.”

At what net worth does the hatred for the rich begin? How much can one own before being subjected to demands for punitive taxation and charitable contributions far beyond what anyone else gives without benefit of tax deductions? I need hard numbers to understand the liberal mindset. I want to plan my financial future so that I never fall into the boiling cauldron of leftist contempt that one risks by working hard and getting ahead. It’s a simple question: How much is too much? What’s the number?

Ten cents above penury.

Wealth is always relative. A Masai herder who owns 10 cows is “rich” compared to the one who only owns five. I recall reading years ago that, in the aftermath of Mao’s takeover in China, such ordinary things as building timbers in a home we would think of as a “hut” were considered “wealth”, and were redistributed among those who had fewer or didn’t have any timbers at all.

In Russia, they ran out of “rich” people to loot after the Bolsheviks took power, so eventually the “rich” included the fellow who owned one cow or one horse or, heaven forbid, both a cow and a horse.

And, of course, there was some truth to it in both cases, relatively speaking. As socialism drove those economies into the dirt, it exposed those who were slightly better off than others, like so many pebbles on the beach at ebb tide. But they were still just pebbles.

If, indeed, the left takes absolute and permanent control in this country, there will be no limit, short of absolute destitution, below which one will be safe from their grasp, unless, of course, one is of the favored partisans. That’s the nature of leftism.

 

[colmywaykurtz]

Ten cents above penury.

Wealth is always relative. A Masai herder who owns 10 cows is “rich” compared to the one who only owns five. I recall reading years ago that, in the aftermath of Mao’s takeover in China, such ordinary things as building timbers in a home we would think of as a “hut” were considered “wealth”, and were redistributed among those who had fewer or didn’t have any timbers at all.

In Russia, they ran out of “rich” people to loot after the Bolsheviks took power, so eventually the “rich” included the fellow who owned one cow or one horse or, heaven forbid, both a cow and a horse.

And, of course, there was some truth to it in both cases, relatively speaking. As socialism drove those economies into the dirt, it exposed those who were slightly better off than others, like so many pebbles on the beach at ebb tide. But they were still just pebbles.

If, indeed, the left takes absolute and permanent control in this country, there will be no limit, short of absolute destitution, below which one will be safe from their grasp, unless, of course, one is of the favored partisans. That’s the nature of leftism.

I’m far more worried about the absolute RIGHT taking control. It just doesn’t seem like a far-out scenario anymore.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I’m far more worried about the absolute RIGHT taking control. It just doesn’t seem like a far-out scenario anymore.

Who, what, do you consider the absolute right, and what, concretely, do you fear from them?

 

[Carlan]

I’m far more worried about the absolute RIGHT taking control. It just doesn’t seem like a far-out scenario anymore.

Yes , I agree with you. They are not concerned as the moderate conservative about social justice teaching which we as Cathollcs were raised to be active in.
Remember all the Maxis and communist slurs dished out by the tea party people a year ago.
They roared like the dickens, you know, and like lions as Scripture says about the evil one looking to devour.They are a dangerous lot, my opinion. Peace, Carlan