Did You Eat Today?

reddog6376 · November 2, 2009, 11:26pm

[quote]PB-Crawl wrote:
reddog6376 wrote:
PB-Crawl wrote:
reddog6376 wrote:
It would be cheaper to let the poor keep their money and send their kids to the school of their choosing.

Hah do you really believe the true poor are paying that much in taxes?

Income tax isn’t the only tax we have.

Oh yea i forgot the poor are being raped by land taxes and hunting fee taxes…

the taxes that the poor pay are the vast majority for items of need. Sales tax on food, some clothes that can’t be second handed, gas taxes if they have a car, ect.

removing the taxes on these items won’t net much in the way of income for them, especially not nearly 7500+, since theyre not buying a whole lot of food or gasoline to begin with. Doubly so if theyre using food stamps, then theyre paying even less taxes.[/quote]

Money for public schools comes primarily from property tax. If they own a home then they pay property tax. If they rent, the owner passes on the cost of property tax to them. The property tax paid by businesses in their neighborhoods are passed on to them in the form of higher prices. Directly or indirectly, they pay for it.

PB_Crawl · November 2, 2009, 11:29pm

[quote]reddog6376 wrote:
PB-Crawl wrote:
Valor wrote:
borrek wrote:
Given that people in the US are still hungry, and people here are saying that they already give enough taxes, then is straightforward to see that you prefer keeping more of your money than feeding neighbors.

That is supposed to magically change if taxes are decreased? Anyone here who says they would give a 1/3 to 1/2 of their paycheck to charity if taxes were removed is a fucking liar.

No. The only think you can conclude is that you’re a fucking idiot. I perfer to recover the 80% of taxes that are wasted. What you dont fucking understand, because you’re a total fucking tool, is that taxing ME more, isn’t going to feed anyone. That money is going straight into the pocket of some overpaid, politcal hack.

And thats the fucking point. God, I hate stupid people first thing in the morning.

You want to feed people? Cut taxes in half and watch the jobs created.

There will always be poor people in any economy. Adjusting employment will never be the end all solution, sure it will help a lot, but it won’t magically make it go away.

the only way to provide a service like this is through taxes and government, and/or charity.

Borrek is simply arguing that most people really aren’t that charitable, and taxes aren’t the resaon. Look at Salvation Army christmas drives outside of grocery stores, are taxes REALLY keeping all those people walking by from dropping in 25 cents? Taxes aren’t holding people back from donating shit. Also,look at the amount of used clothes that are thrown away instead of donated, Salvation Army will drive to your house to pick that shit up but people still throw it away. I’d enjoy any argument that can explain how taxes are effecting that.

the whole reason programs like this were created was because people aren’t all that charitable. Simply feeding/clothing poor in the US isn’t as attractive to philanthropists and the Gates of the world these days. Sending malaria drugs to africa or funding gene therapy is in.

You’re confusing cause and effect. Charitable contributions are weak because it has now become the “responsibility” of the gov’t. People think “Why should I, they can sign up for federal assistance?” If the gov’t wasn’t in the picture, people would be both more aware and more willing to help their neighbors.

[/quote]

Taxes are not turning people into scrooges, its just an easy excuse. Before taxes the argument was social darwinism “Why should I, I earned all my money, I’m not responsible for them” They’re both valid arguments but they have never been the actual causes.

PB_Crawl · November 2, 2009, 11:36pm

[quote]reddog6376 wrote:
PB-Crawl wrote:
reddog6376 wrote:
PB-Crawl wrote:
reddog6376 wrote:
It would be cheaper to let the poor keep their money and send their kids to the school of their choosing.

Hah do you really believe the true poor are paying that much in taxes?

Income tax isn’t the only tax we have.

Oh yea i forgot the poor are being raped by land taxes and hunting fee taxes…

the taxes that the poor pay are the vast majority for items of need. Sales tax on food, some clothes that can’t be second handed, gas taxes if they have a car, ect.

removing the taxes on these items won’t net much in the way of income for them, especially not nearly 7500+, since theyre not buying a whole lot of food or gasoline to begin with. Doubly so if theyre using food stamps, then theyre paying even less taxes.

Money for public schools comes primarily from property tax. If they own a home then they pay property tax. If they rent, the owner passes on the cost of property tax to them. The property tax paid by businesses in their neighborhoods are passed on to them in the form of higher prices. Directly or indirectly, they pay for it.
[/quote]

Saving 200 dollars a month still does not get thier kid into a private school. If they are poor theres probably a whole list of things theyre not buying but are higher up priority than a private school.

John_S1 · November 2, 2009, 11:40pm

Why are the poor having kids?

If they are putting there kids into these dangerous situations then shouldn’t we start charging them with child abuse? At the very least Child endangerment.

So I will be expecting the left to start pursuing arresting all these parents in the name of saving the children.

If you are unwilling to do that then people need to shut the fuck up about the kids.

reddog6376 · November 2, 2009, 11:44pm

[quote]PB-Crawl wrote:
reddog6376 wrote:

Taxes are not turning people into scrooges, its just an easy excuse. Before taxes the argument was social darwinism “Why should I, I earned all my money, I’m not responsible for them” They’re both valid arguments but they have never been the actual causes.[/quote]

I hate to prove you wrong (not really), but the facts contradicts your theory.

http://www.philanthropyjournal.org/resources/fundraisinggiving/impact-changes-tax-rates-charitable-giving

“Following the 1981 income-tax rate cut that went into effect in 1982, rather than declining because charitable deductions were less valuable on an after-tax basis, charitable contributions actually increased 24.3% (in inflation-adjusted 2007 dollars) over the next four years before dropping about 5% with the stock market crash in 1987 (see accompanying graph).
A similar pattern was seen following the 1987 and 1988 tax rate cuts with another stock market decline in 1990 putting the brakes on the increase in giving.
Even though deductions were more valuable after the 1993 tax rate increase, giving dipped 0.42% in 1994 and inched up only 1.51% in 1995.
Giving spiked 10.2% following the capital gains rate cut in 1997.
In the two years after the rate cuts in 2003, average inflation-adjusted salaries for the top 1% of earners rose 18.8% and 22.5%, respectively.2Inflation-adjusted charitable giving during this period, as measured by charitable deductions claimed on high-income tax returns, grew 23.1% and 21.3%.3”

The bottom line is when taxes are decreased people have more money so philanthropy increases.

PB_Crawl · November 2, 2009, 6:52pm

[quote]John S. wrote:
Why are the poor having kids?

If they are putting there kids into these dangerous situations then shouldn’t we start charging them with child abuse? At the very least Child endangerment.

So I will be expecting the left to start pursuing arresting all these parents in the name of saving the children.

If you are unwilling to do that then people need to shut the fuck up about the kids.[/quote]

They could be poor because they had kids, or are now single parents, among and endless amount of reasons.

Counter productive. According to the current argument,taxes on food, land, sales, ect are the taxes keeping poor children out of private schools. How on Earth would expanding CPS workers and facilities through taxes, help such a situation.

And if taxes are believed to be immoral becuase they are robbery/taken by force, how could you justify the robbery of children?

PB_Crawl · November 3, 2009, 12:03am

[quote]reddog6376 wrote:
PB-Crawl wrote:
reddog6376 wrote:

Taxes are not turning people into scrooges, its just an easy excuse. Before taxes the argument was social darwinism “Why should I, I earned all my money, I’m not responsible for them” They’re both valid arguments but they have never been the actual causes.

I hate to prove you wrong (not really), but the facts contradicts your theory.

http://www.philanthropyjournal.org/resources/fundraisinggiving/impact-changes-tax-rates-charitable-giving

“Following the 1981 income-tax rate cut that went into effect in 1982, rather than declining because charitable deductions were less valuable on an after-tax basis, charitable contributions actually increased 24.3% (in inflation-adjusted 2007 dollars) over the next four years before dropping about 5% with the stock market crash in 1987 (see accompanying graph).
A similar pattern was seen following the 1987 and 1988 tax rate cuts with another stock market decline in 1990 putting the brakes on the increase in giving.
Even though deductions were more valuable after the 1993 tax rate increase, giving dipped 0.42% in 1994 and inched up only 1.51% in 1995.
Giving spiked 10.2% following the capital gains rate cut in 1997.
In the two years after the rate cuts in 2003, average inflation-adjusted salaries for the top 1% of earners rose 18.8% and 22.5%, respectively.2Inflation-adjusted charitable giving during this period, as measured by charitable deductions claimed on high-income tax returns, grew 23.1% and 21.3%.3”

The bottom line is when taxes are decreased people have more money so philanthropy increases.
[/quote]

***Among affluent donors that theory seems to be untrue

Are you saying, that you would be willing to make 500k dollar donations if your income tax dissapeared?

This article is talking about people making the kind of money where they donate in the hundreds of thousands. People who ALREADY are donating money.

What happened to the argument of people not donating because the government taxes them?

John_S1 · November 3, 2009, 12:09am

[quote]PB-Crawl wrote:
John S. wrote:
Why are the poor having kids?

If they are putting there kids into these dangerous situations then shouldn’t we start charging them with child abuse? At the very least Child endangerment.

So I will be expecting the left to start pursuing arresting all these parents in the name of saving the children.

If you are unwilling to do that then people need to shut the fuck up about the kids.

They could be poor because they had kids, or are now single parents, among and endless amount of reasons.

Counter productive. According to the current argument,taxes on food, land, sales, ect are the taxes keeping poor children out of private schools. How on Earth would expanding CPS workers and facilities through taxes, help such a situation.

And if taxes are believed to be immoral becuase they are robbery/taken by force, how could you justify the robbery of children?[/quote]

No I just used the lefts argument and ran with it.

I believe that everyone is free to make choices, and have to live with the consequences. If a family wants to have 2 kids when they only make 30k a year then they have to live with that.

If they want to get a divorce and now the kids will be with parents who only make 12-13k, well the family has to live with that.

We support this kind of behavior and that is why it is around. If we cut support the vast majority of these situations would disappear. To the rest charity will take care of them.

Taxes are theft, there is no other way to look at it.

The family’s don’t have the money to send there kids to a school but can buy a big screen T.V.

You can not make a weak man strong by making a strong man weak-Abraham Lincoln.

PB_Crawl · November 3, 2009, 2:00am

[quote]John S. wrote:
PB-Crawl wrote:
John S. wrote:
Why are the poor having kids?

If they are putting there kids into these dangerous situations then shouldn’t we start charging them with child abuse? At the very least Child endangerment.

So I will be expecting the left to start pursuing arresting all these parents in the name of saving the children.

If you are unwilling to do that then people need to shut the fuck up about the kids.

They could be poor because they had kids, or are now single parents, among and endless amount of reasons.

Counter productive. According to the current argument,taxes on food, land, sales, ect are the taxes keeping poor children out of private schools. How on Earth would expanding CPS workers and facilities through taxes, help such a situation.

And if taxes are believed to be immoral becuase they are robbery/taken by force, how could you justify the robbery of children?

No I just used the lefts argument and ran with it.

I believe that everyone is free to make choices, and have to live with the consequences. If a family wants to have 2 kids when they only make 30k a year then they have to live with that.

If they want to get a divorce and now the kids will be with parents who only make 12-13k, well the family has to live with that.

We support this kind of behavior and that is why it is around. If we cut support the vast majority of these situations would disappear. To the rest charity will take care of them.

Taxes are theft, there is no other way to look at it.

The family’s don’t have the money to send there kids to a school but can buy a big screen T.V.

You can not make a weak man strong by making a strong man weak-Abraham Lincoln.[/quote]

While I agree with you on the fundamentals, I’m not convinced that the charity exists to support so many people. Or even if it does, that the it could be mustered quick enough to support kids in these situations.

Im not prepared to agree to throw a generation of children under the bus, just so we can ensure the next generation, will be better off. Thats like the end all of utilitarian arguments.

The disconnect between making changes like this on paper, and actually having to see the people it will impact is huge. Which is the same reason I suppose politicians have little problems with running unpayable deficits.

It’s theft if you don’t drive on roads, use any public systems, electricity, water, buy things, ect. sure. Theres plenty of people who get through their lives without paying direct taxes.

PB_Crawl · November 3, 2009, 2:02am

[quote]John S. wrote:

The family’s don’t have the money to send there kids to a school but can buy a big screen T.V.

[/quote]

Ive yet to see a family who lives out of their car own a big screen TV.

reddog6376 · November 3, 2009, 3:44am

[quote]PB-Crawl wrote:
reddog6376 wrote:
PB-Crawl wrote:
reddog6376 wrote:

Taxes are not turning people into scrooges, its just an easy excuse. Before taxes the argument was social darwinism “Why should I, I earned all my money, I’m not responsible for them” They’re both valid arguments but they have never been the actual causes.

I hate to prove you wrong (not really), but the facts contradicts your theory.

http://www.philanthropyjournal.org/resources/fundraisinggiving/impact-changes-tax-rates-charitable-giving

“Following the 1981 income-tax rate cut that went into effect in 1982, rather than declining because charitable deductions were less valuable on an after-tax basis, charitable contributions actually increased 24.3% (in inflation-adjusted 2007 dollars) over the next four years before dropping about 5% with the stock market crash in 1987 (see accompanying graph).
A similar pattern was seen following the 1987 and 1988 tax rate cuts with another stock market decline in 1990 putting the brakes on the increase in giving.
Even though deductions were more valuable after the 1993 tax rate increase, giving dipped 0.42% in 1994 and inched up only 1.51% in 1995.
Giving spiked 10.2% following the capital gains rate cut in 1997.
In the two years after the rate cuts in 2003, average inflation-adjusted salaries for the top 1% of earners rose 18.8% and 22.5%, respectively.2Inflation-adjusted charitable giving during this period, as measured by charitable deductions claimed on high-income tax returns, grew 23.1% and 21.3%.3”

The bottom line is when taxes are decreased people have more money so philanthropy increases.

***Among affluent donors that theory seems to be untrue

Are you saying, that you would be willing to make 500k dollar donations if your income tax dissapeared?

This article is talking about people making the kind of money where they donate in the hundreds of thousands. People who ALREADY are donating money.

What happened to the argument of people not donating because the government taxes them?

[/quote]

From the article: “Affluent individuals as a group do not see tax benefits as an overriding factor in charitable giving. When asked how their charitable giving would change if the federal income-tax deduction for charitable contributions were eliminated, more than half of the high-net-worth individuals (identified as those households with annual income above $200,000 or a net worth greater than $1 million) participating in a study of high-net-worth philanthropy said their giving would stay the same. Only 7% said it would dramatically decrease.4”

Therefore this article is talking about people who are not affluent who’s charitable donations increase when taxes are cut.

Personally, if my income tax disappeared I would tithe. If everyone tithed there would be no need for welfare.

orion · November 3, 2009, 7:47am

[quote]PB-Crawl wrote:

the whole reason programs like this were created was because people aren’t all that charitable. Simply feeding/clothing poor in the US isn’t as attractive to philanthropists and the Gates of the world these days. Sending malaria drugs to africa or funding gene therapy is in.[/quote]

That is historically incorrect.

As in, completely.

orion · November 3, 2009, 7:50am

[quote]PB-Crawl wrote:
J
Im not prepared to agree to throw a generation of children under the bus, just so we can ensure the next generation, will be better off. Thats like the end all of utilitarian arguments.
[/quote]

So what?

You are allowed to make flimsy utilitarian arguments and the other side is not?

John_S1 · November 3, 2009, 9:14am

[quote]PB-Crawl wrote:
John S. wrote:

The family’s don’t have the money to send there kids to a school but can buy a big screen T.V.

Ive yet to see a family who lives out of their car own a big screen TV.[/quote]

Ive yet to see a family living out of there car not be complete fuck ups.

John_S1 · November 3, 2009, 9:46am

[quote]PB-Crawl wrote:

While I agree with you on the fundamentals, I’m not convinced that the charity exists to support so many people. Or even if it does, that the it could be mustered quick enough to support kids in these situations.

Im not prepared to agree to throw a generation of children under the bus, just so we can ensure the next generation, will be better off. Thats like the end all of utilitarian arguments.

The disconnect between making changes like this on paper, and actually having to see the people it will impact is huge. Which is the same reason I suppose politicians have little problems with running unpayable deficits.

It’s theft if you don’t drive on roads, use any public systems, electricity, water, buy things, ect. sure. Theres plenty of people who get through their lives without paying direct taxes.[/quote]

Why couldn’t we take better care of them then the Government? We as a people can take better care of the poor then our Government. Look at cash for clunkers for example cost the tax payer 24,000 to give 4,500 to the car buyer. That is an unreal amount of waist; and as you pointed out in another one of your statements, The politicians have no problem spending irresponsibly because they don’t have to face the people directly.

You like to mix in a lot of state tax’s when we talk about Federal.

Roads are payed with a tax on Gas. We use gas to run cars which drives on roads. I am paying for a service I use at my leisure. Sure you can point out that some people use it for lawn mowers and stuff, but I am willing to bet 90%+ of the gas sold is for cars. This is a kind of tax that is not theft.

Now I could go on to explain how a sewage system and all that other fun stuff is something I use so I pay for how that is not theft, but these are all state tax’s.

An income tax, now that is theft. No other way to look at it, You can’t justify it with an example of a state tax, no it is just theft.

I would not be surprised if the Income tax is declared illegal in the next 10 years.

It is a very simple thing to do with that generation. If you agree we are free and we have a natural right to make our own decisions then let them live with the consequences. You can’t just choose to do whatever you want and not have to pay the consequences.

If you feel like throwing your money away on them that is fine, but don’t try and preach to me how I am responsible for them and how you have to have control of my money. It is mine not yours and you have no right to take it from me.

Gregus · November 3, 2009, 1:27pm

[quote]Valor wrote:
borrek wrote:
Given that people in the US are still hungry, and people here are saying that they already give enough taxes, then is straightforward to see that you prefer keeping more of your money than feeding neighbors.

That is supposed to magically change if taxes are decreased? Anyone here who says they would give a 1/3 to 1/2 of their paycheck to charity if taxes were removed is a fucking liar.

No. The only think you can conclude is that you’re a fucking idiot. I perfer to recover the 80% of taxes that are wasted. What you dont fucking understand, because you’re a total fucking tool, is that taxing ME more, isn’t going to feed anyone. That money is going straight into the pocket of some overpaid, politcal hack.

And thats the fucking point. God, I hate stupid people first thing in the morning.

You want to feed people? Cut taxes in half and watch the jobs created.[/quote]

Don’t worry. I often Wonder how He made it to being an adult and still thinks in such naive childish ways. LOL. Democrats.

PB_Crawl · November 3, 2009, 8:05pm

[quote]orion wrote:
PB-Crawl wrote:
J
Im not prepared to agree to throw a generation of children under the bus, just so we can ensure the next generation, will be better off. Thats like the end all of utilitarian arguments.

So what?

You are allowed to make flimsy utilitarian arguments and the other side is not?

[/quote]

who is this other side? im speaking from my own views here.

PB_Crawl · November 3, 2009, 8:14pm

[quote]John S. wrote:
PB-Crawl wrote: