It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


US Poverty Rates Swell To Nearly 1/6 Obama Proposes Limit On Deductions To Soup Kitchens

page: 1

log in


posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 08:40 PM

This is at least being met with fierce opposition from both sides. But apparently Obama's response to the increase in poverty rates, is to propose a taxation of front line deliverers of food and aid to the poor, proposing taxes on up to 40% of charities.

Yesterday, it was announced that an astounding 1 in 6 Americans are living in poverty. President Obama's response? To demand a tax on donations to soup kitchens and other charities that help people desperately in need. The President's proposal will impact approximately 40% of all the tax deductible contributions, and essentially penalize soup kitchens, hospitals, and churches that provide essential services to those who need them most. It’s no wonder this tax hike has been rejected on both sides of the aisle.

This should really clue everyone into the nature who is running the country. They're not worthy to represent anyone and seem to be working 100% for the dark side.
edit on 15-9-2011 by Unity_99 because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 08:47 PM
reply to post by Unity_99

Come on... is he really trying to do this? I mean, really? Come on!

This really is amazing, tax the [newly] poor but give tax breaks to the wealthy. I'm disgusted. Sad day for our country

posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 08:48 PM
Additional links:

The jobs bill includes "President Obama's tax on soup kitchens"

"Limiting the tax savings on charitable contributions will reduce the amount that affected taxpayers give," Williams said. "Some of what those folks give goes to soup kitchens. Affected soup kitchens will have less money to feed their clients, who will therefore be worse off."...

Statistics for the 2006 tax year showed that only 2.9 percent of filers reported adjusted gross incomes of at least $200,000. (Some joint households in this group do not earn enough to be affected by Obama’s proposal, but it’s the closest approximation in the data that we could get.) Yet despite the small size of this group, their itemized charitable donations accounted for 38.4 percent of all the itemized charitable donations made in the U.S. that year, by taxpayers from all income levels. So a tax hit to this group would likely hurt charitable giving more severely than a similarly structured tax hike on lower-income taxpayers.


Brad Dayspring, a Cantor spokesman, said the point of the post was that "eliminating a tax deduction for those who give to charities creates a new tax disincentive for that action, one that has otherwise not existed for a long-standing period of time. Bipartisan Members of Congress agree that this will have a negative effect on charities. … Soup kitchens are one such category of charities. … Ergo, President Obama introduced a new and negative tax treatment for soup kitchens (among others) this week. That is a fact."

So it looks like this is about tax deductibles, and limiting the amount that be given.

Since its the higher incomes that give the most, this still remains one of the most vicious things he could have done.

posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 08:51 PM
The"president"is a pig.Im infuriated by washingtons treatment of the poor and middle class.Damn them all to hell.What gall!!

posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 08:52 PM
Well I did a bit more research and it is misleading in not being a direct tax, but then really that part is impossible, how would you be able to collect taxes on drop offs? Instead what he is doing is limiting tax deductibles for those income groups that can make the biggest donations. So I think the 40% of charities affected by this is possibly affected is probably quite accurate.

And that truly is deplorable.

Apparently this proposal does not sit well with both republicans and democrats.

I just changed the title to reflect the part about deductions, limiting donations to the middle class group, and incentive for the wealthy.
edit on 15-9-2011 by Unity_99 because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 09:03 PM
From your own source, politifact

"This section would limit the value of all itemized deductions and certain other tax expenditures for high-income taxpayers by limiting the tax value of otherwise allowable deductions and exclusions to 28 percent. No taxpayer with adjusted gross income under $250,000 for married couples filing jointly (or $200,000 for single taxpayers) would be subject to this limitation. The limitation would affect itemized deductions and certain other tax expenditures that would otherwise reduce taxable income in the 36 or 39.6 percent tax brackets. A similar limitation also would apply under the alternative minimum tax. This section would be effective for taxable years beginning on or after January 1, 2013."

In other words, this provision would generate income by limiting how much certain high-income taxpayers can deduct for charitable or other reasons.

Politifact called it mostly false (the alligation)..basically it is hammering the rich trying to duck out of paying taxes.

So, yes...perhaps there is a "dark side" winning...and they win by spinning facts to make you stand up for the richest...congrats on being duped into a Cantor lie.

And as far as the poster calling the POTUS a pig because of the opposition spin...well, actually, there...thats all it takes, just pointing out what you did and perhaps if there is an ounce of integrity, you will consider your words and reaction. Wonder how many other right wing lies you fell for such a shameful disgraceful response.

I assume your a foreigner btw...

posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 09:04 PM

Obama - If you love me then you gotta help me pass this bill

I hope this isn't the bill that is being talked about.

This is making me me sick by the minute, its repulsive, the sure arrogance of playing public will like this, must be a huge ego stroke.

posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 09:06 PM
reply to post by SaturnFX

I included that link and changed the title. In no way does it not impact charities. Its going to have a very large impact, because its takes away the incentive for the wealthy, the major contributors to contribute.

When one wants to plug tax loop holes, they don't mean those kind.

I'm Canadian, and this man has close ties to our leadership, in a bullying kind of way.

I included more links in my next post and went on to research, and the outcome is the same. No doubt this affects 40% of the charities. The large donations would be wealthy and corporate.

As to what someone called him. He had no right to even go there with this bill, and its absolutely reprehensible, beyond that he did.

I hope you realize they're attempting to crash the economy. Is he directly amongst the group of dark hats trying to do this?

Well, if he's not, I would very strongly suggest a few other strategies.

Truth, disclosure and working on behalf of those in need in his country. If I was him, I'd move my family to Norhtern Canada and refuse to play ball, and I've sent that message to him in meditation quite a few times.

Stop doing the dark sides biddings then!

edit on 15-9-2011 by Unity_99 because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 09:31 PM

“Limiting the itemized deduction would certainly lead to a significant decrease in charitable contributions. If charities have less resources, they’ll be forced to choose between laying off employees or cutting needed services,” William C. Daroff, vice president for Public Policy at the Jewish Federations of North America told the Chronicle of Philanthropy.

Cutting philanthropy to fund the jobs program may, in fact, reduce overall jobs and services for the needy, some say.

The program is “exactly the wrong direction to go in,” Sandra Swirski, executive director of the Alliance for Charitable Reform told the Chronicle.....

What’s more, this idea was floated in 2009 and quickly rejected — in part because of fierce lobbying from non-profits.

Yet funding a jobs program by reducing charitable gifts does seem to be a strange way to improve the economy.

In 2009, this apparently was something that was proposed then, and halted because of the strong lobbying from non-profits and those front line dealing with the poor.

For some strange reason, bringing up this issue is seen as partisan in some way.

This is a HUMAN ISSUE. No party should be able to get away with harming the poor, and the non-profits themselves see very clearly where this will lead.

posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 09:47 PM

This talks about this plan, including that its not new, mentioning 2009. I don't see him as a white hat, because out a large lists of possibilities, why put this little extra in, when its a critical one.

But the ideas, which include limiting tax deductions to charitable contributions and increasing taxes on hedge funds and private equity groups, have not fared well in Congress, prompting opposition from key Democrats.....

"In the case of the charitable deduction, one has to keep in mind that the recipients of the contributions include universities, hospitals, churches and soup kitchens that provide critical services to working families," Levin said.

I have no idea about the other things he has proposed.....He's called a socialist by some, but he's not what I call a social democrat. I am that. The right wing side believes the reason for government to exist is to keep the status quo going so the rich stay entitled and to create laws.

I don't stand under them, there is no real purpose for government other than counsels of citizens EXCEPT to redistribute wealth amongst the citizens equally. So, this isn't partisan. But I don't recognize this as social democracy either.

Tax cut offs need to be specific, I do believe strongly in taxing the wealthy higher rates. But not their donations to charities that serve the public like soup kitchens. I might be prone to scan through the lists of what is termed charities and modify them somewhat, as I'm certainly sure there are some big abuses taking place, but not like this.
edit on 15-9-2011 by Unity_99 because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 09:55 PM

In other words, this provision would generate income by limiting how much certain high-income taxpayers can deduct for charitable or other reasons.

Politifact called it mostly false (the alligation)..basically it is hammering the rich trying to duck out of paying taxes.

So, yes...perhaps there is a "dark side" winning...and they win by spinning facts to make you stand up for the richest...congrats on being duped into a Cantor lie.

I agree.
I also cannot believe that for the second time in as many days, I have defended a man I did not vote for.
However, the bashing, knee jerk reaction to headlines some people are having against him is driving me to post.

edit on 15-9-2011 by MissPoovey because: add quote

edit on 15-9-2011 by MissPoovey because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 10:18 PM
Funny how he left this part out of his speech. Did Obama ever have the intent to actually turn things around? He's just as greedy as the rest, if not more. I don't believe a thing this clown says. People line up and tune in to his speeches, and still, to this day, believe what they hear. Deplorable.

posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 10:20 PM
reply to post by MissPoovey

The charities and non-profits are not going to agree with you and fought against this fiercely. SURELY HE COULD HAVE LEFT THAT OUT AND FOUND GOOD WAYS TO HIT UP THE RICH.

He's not off any hooks. Also, I'm a little psi and I'm getting weird vibes of fthis thread. I am now asking, maybe someone on ats has some inside knowledge or ideas here, is he a white hat or dark hat? Does he support,or is a puppet to those who wish to crash the economy and have a real plan to let all the vulnerable starve. This is a real plan, and I don't bash him directly. Because it depends on if it gets worse or not. One thing he doesnt seem to have a handle on, is the dark hats in the bases who pulled off Fukushima, or any way of protecting people. I would do it, if I was him.

I'm going to clarify exactly what the vibe was. It was as if he considers himself a servant of God. Well, faith is Good, always. But, in what way? Because it was a different way, than the people.

For example, why would it matter if someone puts a bad wording in a bill that would hurt charities reaching the poor, and someone calls him a pig. Words don't hurt people. Not like starving does. I mean thats just childish and immature to get upset about that. It was like he was beyond reproach and it was a sin to write or say anything that could get people upset.

No its not, to write about awareness, its actually the right thing to do. People are responsible for their own language but he's not an unproachable.

The bloodlines are not direct servants of God if they hurt or harm the people ,or act like catalysts, if their religion is the gnostic mystery school one

God is on the side of the people and is all about COMPLETE EQUALITY.

After all I've been praying for this man for a while, and that he disclose everything and head up north to hide out. If he's on the same level of Bush Sr., Kissinger, Rockefeller, would need to pray for different things, like U-Turns, redemption.

Here is what I have to say to all of them:
To All TPTB/Black Ops, Time To Wake Up To Equality and Love,

edit on 15-9-2011 by Unity_99 because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 12:56 PM
Mr. Obama, just in case anything on forums gets through. Love and Light! Wake up. Be Love. And remember, feeding and redistributing is the real job. The mystery school stuff is distortion and a drag.

And people who speak up to make sure you're on that job, call up any errors concerning this are not conservtatives. Don't think conservatives care about equalizing, do you?

Personally I don't think politicians do either, but some of these politiicans think they're serving God, or something they call God by their own interpretations.

And as to Queenie and all the bad orders. Say No!

Love and Light, and High Frequencies.

edit on 16-9-2011 by Unity_99 because: (no reason given)

top topics


log in