It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Obama is cutting tax breaks to CHARITIES

page: 1
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 06:23 PM
link   


The government is cutting tax breaks to those who give to charity..which means less will probably be given. Government will then get that money and do whatever they choose.

This is ridiculous.

Want to help people? Gotta pay more taxes..government knows what is best for your money.




posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 06:45 PM
link   
You know it is bad when Ben Stein is telling you that it is bad.

How do you know when you're going down the wrong road?

When staunch liberals are telling you your policies suck.

Obama is going to be in for a rude awaking. I hate to repeat talking points, but this one is very true, he is trying to squeeze blood out of a stone.

Now for the plus side of this is that his radical leftist agenda will fail. The downside of this is that it is going to take us decades to recover and rebuild from the ruins. It was bad enough we had to clean up after Bush.

This is bad for charity, this is going to put millions of more people out of work. Even though these are non-profit, charitable organizations, they still employ people to make sure everything runs smoothly.



[edit on 2-3-2009 by Hastobemoretolife]



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 06:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Hastobemoretolife
 





It was bad enough we had to clean up after Bush.


That's the thing...they never cleaned up after Bush...they just swiped it under the rug and made a mess of their own..A HUGE ONE.

If Obama isn't hellbent on dismantling the entire economy then he's a complete idiot.

None of this makes sense.



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 06:59 PM
link   
reply to post by David9176
 


The Obama administration really reminds me of Showtime at the Apollo.




That's the thing...they never cleaned up after Bush...they just swiped it under the rug and made a mess of their own..A HUGE ONE.


That is what gets me most they complain and moan about how Bush spent us this way and the republicans are this and that, then turn around and do the same thing that they were preaching out against.

Hypocrites, thieves, and criminals is what our government consist of.

Whether all this is intentional or ineptness it all needs to stop. Like ASAP.



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 07:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Hastobemoretolife
 





That is what gets me most they complain and moan about how Bush spent us this way and the republicans are this and that, then turn around and do the same thing that they were preaching out against.


Exactly...not only are they doing the same thing...but they are doing it 10 fold.

This is their whole justification for doing it..."oh how can people complain the Republicans did it as well."

So this is supposed to justify it? It's stupid.

The tax break thing though....why in the hell would they do that? Isn't charity a good thing? Does the government have to control this too?

yeah...they'll take control of charity...and then make it more welfare.



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 07:21 PM
link   
I'm no accountant or tax-guru but aren't contributions to charities nothing but a big tax-shelter used by the rich to not only avoid paying taxes on those contributions but to claim credits as well?

Please correct me if I'm wrong. I hope I am heeh



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 07:30 PM
link   
I believe that tax breaks to charities should be based on the persentage of the monies they collect that actually go to what the charities are collecting the money for.

There are many charities that spend less then 10 % of the money they collect for what they collect the money for.
These charities are scams and should be taxed.
clarkhoward.com...



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 07:35 PM
link   
Information on the subject -

www.latimes.com...


Under the president's proposal, these taxpayers would recoup 28% of the value of qualified deductions, such as charitable donations, rather than higher percentages laid out under current law.

That could mean a couple in the 35% tax bracket who once could have recouped $3,500 of a $10,000 donation to a charity would now recoup only $2,800.

* The budget envisions more than $316 billion in additional revenue from changing the way the federal government pays for healthcare through Medicare and Medicaid, its two primary public insurance programs.

The biggest chunk of that revenue -- more than $175 billion -- would come from cutting payments to insurance companies that currently contract with the federal government to provide care to senior citizens on Medicare through the Medicare Advantage program.


[edit on 2-3-2009 by mental modulator]



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 07:37 PM
link   
I'm sure there are people who cheat...but that doesn't make it right for those who don't and are actually helping people out of their own good will.

At least they are volunteering money instead of forcibly having it taken from them by the government.

You are right though, some are greedy.

If it was me and i was rich, i'd give lots of it away and keep enough to live comfortably.

Isn't that kind of a reward for making alot of money? Doing good for the society and giving back...voluntarily?

It's what I would do. When people ask me for money on the street i always give some money..even if i think they could be scamming me.

That's what all part of being a good person isn't it?



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 07:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by David9176
I'm sure there are people who cheat...but that doesn't make it right for those who don't and are actually helping people out of their own good will.

At least they are volunteering money instead of forcibly having it taken from them by the government.

You are right though, some are greedy.

If it was me and i was rich, i'd give lots of it away and keep enough to live comfortably.

Isn't that kind of a reward for making alot of money? Doing good for the society and giving back...voluntarily?

It's what I would do. When people ask me for money on the street i always give some money..even if i think they could be scamming me.

That's what all part of being a good person isn't it?


This and other things are being done to introduce funds into universal healthcare type program. So trying to frame this as just giving money to government is not 100%
accurate. Healthcare was part of Obama's platform, so was raising the tax rates on the top 2% to MY and probably your tax rate, unless your very rich.

Certain Line item deductions are also at risk - charitable donations will receive a -7% thump, yes. However the same action will cut HMO subsidies and Pharma Subs...

Of all the things - the Uni healthcare is something I support 100% - We pay 200% more than other country for sub par care in many cases.


[edit on 2-3-2009 by mental modulator]



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 08:10 PM
link   
Tax breaks is just a giant hoax.

How do you call these tax breaks when TAXES EVERYWHERE ELSE ARE RISING?

It is just food for the sheep.

People getting their what, 6-8 more dollars a week, when property taxes, food and entertainment taxes are going up all over, plus more?

You know what a real tax break is? LOWERING THE TAXES.

I really think our government is playing a game of Hollywood...just look good, and everything will be alright.

Want Change? I know Obama does.

edit- I really can not say much about the OP besides what I have just stated. It is just the same BS all over. This is crazy. Now, I am against taxes and all of that, but to say the least, out of all the things you can tax, this?... This confuses me.



[edit on 2-3-2009 by FritosBBQTwist]



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 08:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by David9176
reply to post by Hastobemoretolife
 





It was bad enough we had to clean up after Bush.


That's the thing...they never cleaned up after Bush...they just swiped it under the rug and made a mess of their own..A HUGE ONE.

If Obama isn't hellbent on dismantling the entire economy then he's a complete idiot.

None of this makes sense.


Maybe you finally hit the good old ignore button...

your rage seems reasonable if you ignore
US history.

At least three times I have posted information upon the great depression-
I made certain to point out the HERBERT HOOVER proposed exactly what you seem to
be calling for, which is balancing the budget and a spending freeze. (pre GD)

SO WHY DO YOU SEEM TO BE ADVOCATING THE SAME THING???

You and Beck entire stance completely ignore the fact that there is a limited supply of money circulating right now.Further more you ignore the fact that nobody wants to INVEST heavily in such a hostile environment even if taxes were dropped further.



Beck so cleverly ignores the basics of supply in demand when it suits his ideology.

Once again, a contracting economy will continue to contract until the flow of capital is increased to a certain stabilizing point, in said economy.

You come hear with your prepackaged arguments that hinge on emotions and ignore
more brass tack considerations.

Beck would have the unemployed eat themselves before extending unemployment to the lazy Americans who are out of work.

And you care more about your emotional strife then understanding a tiny bit of the technical stuff involved.

BTW the problem with BUSH is that he spent wildly and let business go wild via his policies. You can't do both, either you let business rule above all else or you let government - both is insanity - coupled with destructive intent and you get 2000 - 2008



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 08:33 PM
link   
reply to post by David9176
 


It is just a way for them to grow and cement their power. If they control who gets charity money then they can decide which ones survive.

The thing about this tax deduction though is that it is available to anyone, not just rich folks.

And as far as Universal Health Care goes, is it really worth destroying the whole economy to implement? I don't think so.

I'll say this again, the problem is not health care it is health insurance. Implementing Universal Health care to solve the health care insurance problem is like using a shotgun to cure a headache.



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 08:41 PM
link   
Seems like Congress isn't too hot on the idea.


Democrats and Republicans poured cold water on President Obama's budget plan to cut down on wealthy taxpayers' charitable giving tax deductions, the second of his ambitious cost-savings plans to earn lawmakers' scorn, and underscoring the legislative minefield he is entering.


www.washingtontimes.com...

Additional info


So, how big a problem could this be? According to the IRS, the 3,656,493 tax returns containing incomes above $200,000 contributed $81,261,387,000 to charities. That’s an average contribution of $22,224. Now 3.6 million returns is only 9 percent of all returns in 2006, but $81.3 billion in contributions is 44 percent of all giving as recorded through the tax forms. The number probably is a good deal higher than that, since many taxpayers do not report all or any charitable contributions on their itemized deductions schedule.

So, it’s a big problem. By the way, the rest of us (37,781,256 tax returns) probably won’t fill the gap. Taxpayers with incomes below $200,000 and who itemized their deductions contributed $105.4 billion to charities, for an average contribution of $2,789, or nearly ten times less than those taxpayers above $200,000.


blog.heritage.org...

i don't think this will go too far. With a budget this big, I am sure there are bound to be good ideas as well as bad ones.



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 08:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Hastobemoretolife
 





And as far as Universal Health Care goes, is it really worth destroying the whole economy to implement? I don't think so.


I agree...and it's not because i dont want people to have health care. My father is on both SS and Medicare because of a car accident he did not cause. His spine is all messed up. He's in constant pain and takes heavy painkillers to help alleviate the pain. He can't lift up anything. If he were to take a punch to the face or a good knock to the head he would be paralyzed.

He depends on it...not solely...but it helps them get buy. It's not much either.

I'm torn on this because I know that there are people out there who are unable to work to no fault of their own.

First and foremost though...the economy has got to get back on track. If we are all dirt poor then it's not going to matter anyway.

If there is ever a universal health care...it should be up to states. Not enforced....or at least have the option not to participate and therefore not pay taxes on it.

Having this type of competition could actually drive prices down potentially.



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 08:52 PM
link   
reply to post by mental modulator
 


No, I'm not ignoring you. I'm defiantly not letting my emotions get in the way of my politics.

Hoover didn't balance the budget, he started to increase spending right before he was voted out. We were starting to come out of the recession in 1932, before Hoover started dumping cash into the economy. Then comes along Roosevelt with his New Deal, which most of it was declared unconstitutional, he also raised taxes on everybody and implemented price fixes. And despite the decision of the Supreme Court on the New Deal he still let the New Deal policies go on and did not enforce the the decision.

Obama is proposing to do the same thing as both Hoover and Roosevelt and put us in a greater depression. What he is also doing wrong is trying to implement Universal Health Care for 309+ million people. Medicaid and Medicare doesn't work, and the VA is really dirt poor health care and those are the people that have gotten limbs blown off and have shrapnel removed fighting in the wars our country sent them to fight. If that is how they treat our soldiers how do you think they are going to treat us?

Not only that, but expect to start paying a total amount of tax upwards of 55% when everything is said and done. The health care industry will loose millions of jobs, and become sub par. Long waits and some bureaucrat up in Washington telling your doctor that you can't have that live saving operation because it isn't "cost effective".

Then with him reducing the deduction, you can expect less people donating to charities like the Red Cross, St. Judes, cancer research, March of Dimes, etc. You can expect philanthropist donating less mess to building hospitals, and other things that really help the people.

People not saving for a rainy day, is there own fault, and partly the governments for taking money out of their check, even though the get it back at the end of the year. It earns no interest while it is sitting up in Washington or at the state level.

Why should we have to pay for irresponsible people? All we are doing is rewarding failure and punishing success. Oh that also brings up the next problem with this proposed plan. That means less people donating to charities that help homeless people, that rely on donations.



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 08:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hastobemoretolife
reply to post by David9176
 


using a shotgun to cure a headache.


LOL. That hit my funny bone with its directness.

Made my night!



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 09:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by TXRabbit
I'm no accountant or tax-guru but aren't contributions to charities nothing but a big tax-shelter used by the rich to not only avoid paying taxes on those contributions but to claim credits as well?

Please correct me if I'm wrong. I hope I am heeh


I have heard this.

I do not know how "extreme" this is, and am about to go to bed so if it is needed to be looked up, I will tomorrow.



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 09:01 PM
link   
reply to post by David9176
 


I know what you mean my grandmother who has passed away, was on medicare or medicaid it was the one the helps less, anyhow it was a help but it was like 400 dollars a month, then having to deal with the bills from the doctors and hospitals because somebody in government isn't doing their job and paying the people on time.

There are lots of reason for health care system in the shape that it is in. It isn't the treatment and actually care you get, it is the government not paying its bills and the doctors and hospitals having to hire army's of administrators to fight with those two entities to get paid. When they don't get paid they have jack up rates.

I propose free market health care, do away with insurance companies altogether. Then doctors have to compete for patients and it will drive costs down. Because they can save money other places.

Sucks about your pops though.



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 09:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by mental modulator

Originally posted by David9176
I'm sure there are people who cheat...but that doesn't make it right for those who don't and are actually helping people out of their own good will.

At least they are volunteering money instead of forcibly having it taken from them by the government.

You are right though, some are greedy.

If it was me and i was rich, i'd give lots of it away and keep enough to live comfortably.

Isn't that kind of a reward for making alot of money? Doing good for the society and giving back...voluntarily?

It's what I would do. When people ask me for money on the street i always give some money..even if i think they could be scamming me.

That's what all part of being a good person isn't it?


This and other things are being done to introduce funds into universal healthcare type program. So trying to frame this as just giving money to government is not 100%
accurate. Healthcare was part of Obama's platform, so was raising the tax rates on the top 2% to MY and probably your tax rate, unless your very rich.




[edit on 2-3-2009 by mental modulator]


Where do you live where someone making $200000 is very rich?
Do you actually think the government will do a better job of helping the poor than charitable institutions, like Catholic Charities?



new topics

top topics



 
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join