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.
Originally posted by DarthMuerte
IIRC, even secular corporations can write off their lobbying "expenses". As long as that is true, leave the charities alone.
Originally posted by ownbestenemy
Originally posted by JBA2848
Lets see Mitt Romney donates his tax money to a charity that he runs? Then that charity donates $10,000 to Michael Bloombergs daughters horse riding club.
Its in his tax release.
And this has to do with the topic how? Can we just for a moment discuss the topic and leave caustic and jabbing comments about politicians out of it for once? There is some correlation between what you said (just you didn't really say it) and the question; but your response is pure partisan dribble.
If you think Mitt Romney is the only abuser of the system then you are woefully blinded.
Originally posted by jjkenobi
Hell no!! I am already taxed on that money when I earn it in my paycheck. Why should it get taxed AGAIN when I give it away? I don't care if it's to a charity or to my grandma or to my cat Tiddybomboms or to the grocery store. The govt already taxed me on it once, that is enough! C'mon people wake up.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Yesterday, a federal appeals court upheld the
Internal Revenue
Service’s decision to revoke the tax-exempt status of a church that had paid for newspaper ads against then-presidential candidate Bill Clinton in 1992. The revocation is the first in the history of the IRS and serves as a warning from the federal judiciary that churches may not fund partisan activity. U.S. law granting tax-exempt status also forbids tax-exempt organizations from involvement in “any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office.”
Originally posted by Flatfish
Actually, he/she is not off topic at all. If you had taken the time to watch the video, you would have noticed that the primary target of Bill Maher's rhetoric is indeed Mitt Romney and his so called "charitable donations." Actually, the entire segment was created to respond to criticism that was directed at Bill Maher's previous statements, specifically regarding Mitt Romney.
Originally posted by ownbestenemy
Originally posted by Flatfish
Actually, he/she is not off topic at all. If you had taken the time to watch the video, you would have noticed that the primary target of Bill Maher's rhetoric is indeed Mitt Romney and his so called "charitable donations." Actually, the entire segment was created to respond to criticism that was directed at Bill Maher's previous statements, specifically regarding Mitt Romney.
And that was what I was getting at. Your question in the title and even the OP are not what you are discussing then. I took it as a non-partisan view on the tax-code in this manner and it now turns out to be about Mitt Romney and the Mormon "cult" as Maher so "wittily" proclaims.
At least now we can move forward with the real discussion I suppose.
Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by Flatfish
Government got along just fine before income taxation, and in my limited wisdom I all ready pointed out that the national debt at the time the so called "Personal Income Tax" was passed was around $2 billion dollars and the tax scheme was supposed to eliminate that debt. Today, after nearly 100 years of income taxation the national debt is over $15 trillion...$15 trillion...$15 Trillion!
Why don't you explain why that is.
In 1862, in order to support the Civil War effort, Congress enacted the nation's first income tax law. It was a forerunner of our modern income tax in that it was based on the principles of graduated, or progressive, taxation and of withholding income at the source.
Originally posted by snusfanatic
reply to post by Flatfish
The money doesn't start out as the government's it starts out as the people's. The only way to 'rob' the coffers would be to wrongfully receive a direct payment from them (constituted of mostly other peoples money), not getting your own money back. You know, kinda like welfare.