rich gets richer

Status
Not open for further replies.
:ugh:
 
craigm26 said:
Faith alone is kinda hard to do in any society. But some trust is needed and some people should take leaps of faith at opportune, unselfish times.

When I factor in political candidates, very very small percentage, if at all will consider the "generosity factor". I'm not really clear on how it would impact decision-making in such a way.

Yes, the economy hasn't recovered in a fashion that would make most Americans happy. I think our country lives too quickly and expect unrealistic demands (Europe - slow lifestyles and low GDP growth rates...easier to cut/tax or the fluctuations of demand/supply aren't as painful) without actually doing much about the problem/solution. Not going to give the ol' democratic pat on the shoulder, but what do I know about his decision-making? Honestly, not that much. Especially where I can just criticize without knowing or trying to step in those shoes. There's a lot of stuff we don't know, but from what I've read and what I know, he's not doing *that* badly. I'm not really sure who else would be *that* President who could take the GDP to a much higher growth rate. :dunno:.

After reading the rolling stone articleObama in command: The Rolling Stone interview - Politics - White House - msnbc.com, I went "That's the guy I wanted to vote for as President". I think the "dreamy" bubble of "change" (soooo overused...gov't always change with business climates...c'mon) burst and reality of a slower economy set the expectations unrealistically and very well-funded conservative side becomes a bit more patriotic. Seriously..."Take back our country"??? Where did we lose it in the first place? The communists? Who loses the most (% vs. $ yes, I know...) in a "bad" economy? The wealthy.
Click to expand...

Mmm. That's something to think over. I don't think the economy will be fixed overnight. Yeah, all things considered, he's doing ok. I'm not happy with some of his policies and I don't see him being too different from Bush but then when have people ever agreed 100% with politicans? I think it's premature to declare the health program after only a few months and I wonder what the motives are behind that.

It's too bad so many people prefer the shrill and fear mongering politicans over rational discourse. Fear and demonizing others apparently is preferable to facts and that's sad.
 
deafskeptic said:
Mmm. That's something to think over. I don't think the economy will be fixed overnight. Yeah, all things considered, he's doing ok. I'm not happy with some of his policies and I don't see him being too different from Bush but then when have people ever agreed 100% with politicans? I think it's premature to declare the health program after only a few months and I wonder what the motives are behind that.

It's too bad so many people prefer the shrill and fear mongering politicans over rational discourse. Fear and demonizing others apparently is preferable to facts and that's sad.
Click to expand...

me too
 
The middle class is the one who is getting taxed heavily.
 
I agree about faith alone.

Anyway, you can't rely on churches to provide for you either because one minute they will volunteer and the next they won't. It's like a yo-yo. there's no security (I'm talking about charities).
 
I'm cracking up about all that babble about who gives more charity. Are people seriously that gullible? More charity = more generous..? Pfft.

That's quite naive to me.

Has it occurred to ANYONE that they prefer to give money to where they WANT as opposed to giving their money to the government. MOST OF CHARITY IS TAX DEDUCTIBLE......

I'd like to see their numbers taking account of tax deductible charity. How much money did they REALLY give away?
 
Daredevel7 said:
I'm cracking up about all that babble about who gives more charity. Are people seriously that gullible? More charity = more generous..? Pfft.

That's quite naive to me.

Has it occurred to ANYONE that they prefer to give money to where they WANT as opposed to giving their money to the government. MOST OF CHARITY IS TAX DEDUCTIBLE......

I'd like to see their numbers taking account of tax deductible charity. How much money did they REALLY give away?
Click to expand...

1) Not all charities are tax deductible

2) Of those that are not all are 100% tax deductible

3) Just because it is Tax deductible doesn't mean the deduction is claimed. I do not claim many of mine......really.

4) A tax deduction is not a tax credit....it merely reduces taxable income. So....say you were in the 41% tax bracket....that $1 given to charity only reduces your tax burden by $.41
 
Yeah, TX; I was just thinking along those same lines....
 
TXgolfer said:
1) Not all charities are tax deductible

2) Of those that are not all are 100% tax deductible

3) Just because it is Tax deductible doesn't mean the deduction is claimed. I do not claim many of mine......really.

4) A tax deduction is not a tax credit....it merely reduces taxable income. So....say you were in the 41% tax bracket....that $1 given to charity only reduces your tax burden by $.41
Click to expand...

Like I said, how much did they REALLY give away? Aren't you assuming that no one claims it and that they don't care if it's deductible or not? And besides, most people don't claim their charity BECAUSE the itemized amount usually doesn't exceed the standard. But if you are giving away thousands of dollars....

I'm just saying that sometimes numbers don't tell the whole story.
 
I'd like to add that I DO appreciate the people are giving to charity in the first place. But I honestly don't know why people are using numbers to see who gives more to charity. A person who gives only 100 dollars a month to charity may give "more" than another person who gives 5,000 a month to charity, simply because the first person makes a lot less money. And sometimes a person's time can be the most valuable of all.

So basically, to me, this "who gave more" is just RIDICULOUS.
 
Daredevel7 said:
I'd like to add that I DO appreciate the people are giving to charity in the first place. But I honestly don't know why people are using numbers to see who gives more to charity. A person who gives only 100 dollars a month to charity may give "more" than another person who gives 5,000 a month to charity, simply because the first person makes a lot less money. And sometimes a person's time can be the most valuable of all.

So basically, to me, this "who gave more" is just RIDICULOUS.
Click to expand...

That's why % comes in handy. And how much someone gives isn't a deciding factor on who I vote for.

BUT....When someone campaigns on caring about the poor and making the rich pay their "fair share" while at the same time being a millionaire who gives less than 6% to charity.....That is at least....noteworthy. IMO
 
Daredevel7 said:
I'd like to add that I DO appreciate the people are giving to charity in the first place. But I honestly don't know why people are using numbers to see who gives more to charity. A person who gives only 100 dollars a month to charity may give "more" than another person who gives 5,000 a month to charity, simply because the first person makes a lot less money. And sometimes a person's time can be the most valuable of all.

So basically, to me, this "who gave more" is just RIDICULOUS.
Click to expand...

Agreed. The focus should be on the nature of the action, not on the dollar amount. And you can bet your bibby that those giving high dollar amounts are getting their tax break. Think about it. Someone with that level of income no doubt uses a tax attorney...and no tax attorney would fail to file for every single expense reducing the taxed amount.
 
TXgolfer said:
That's why % comes in handy. And how much someone gives isn't a deciding factor on who I vote for.

BUT....When someone campaigns on caring about the poor and making the rich pay their "fair share" while at the same time being a millionaire who gives less than 6% to charity.....That is at least....noteworthy. IMO
Click to expand...

That 6% is still a sizable chunk of change. Can you match the amount? Or would you even consider it?
 
Wirelessly posted

Historically, socialists who advocated for government programs to alieve poverty were traditionally factory owners and business entrepreneurs. Just something to think about. So I am not sure why charity is an issue?
 
Last edited:
souggy said:
Wirelessly posted

Historically, socialists who advocated for government programs to alieve poverty were traditionally factory owners and business entrepreneurs. Just something to think about. So I am not sure why charity is an issue?
Click to expand...

Neither am I. It seems that the dollar amount is what the issue is, rather than the charitable act.
 
jillio said:
That 6% is still a sizable chunk of change. Can you match the amount? Or would you even consider it?
Click to expand...
It's not the dollar amount that shows the amount of financial sacrifice for giving, but the percentage. The widow's mite was a much larger gift than the prince's gold.
 
Reba said:
It's not the dollar amount that shows the amount of financial sacrifice for giving, but the percentage. The widow's mite was a much larger gift than the prince's gold.
Click to expand...

Percentage does not accurately reflect that, either.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top