Are Tax Deductions for Charity Robbing our Government Coffers?

reply to post by Flatfish

I suspect that the problem is two fold but first I have to ask, what was the population at the time that we had this 2 billion dollar debt? Was it 300 million or was it just a fraction of that number. I was under the impression that the first income taxes were actually imposed in order to help fund the Civil War. Furthermore, how much did it cost to put on a war back then and how much does it cost today.

The population is moot because at that time there were no government funded welfare programs, no standing armies, nor any of the other wasteful crap government loves so much.

You are correct about the first income tax being passed for the Civil War. It was, responsibly so, repealed once the debt of that war was paid.

Prior to that, I would just imagine, that at least on a personal level, many used slave labor to keep themselves out of debt. Imagine that!

First of all, if a plantation owner who owned slaves was in debt, owning slaves wasn't going to get him out of debt. If even with slaves a plantation owner couldn't get out of debt, that plantation was sure to fail.

Secondly, now population comes into play, as well as a better understanding of history. This may come as a shock to you but at the time of the Civil War there were slave states and what was known as "free states". Imagine that! In 1812 there were 10 slave states (Delaware, Georgia, Maryland, South Carolina, North Carolina, Virginia, Kentucky, Tennessee and Louisiana) and there were 9 "free states" where slavery was illegal. In 1816, Indiana - a "free state" - was admitted into the Union. In 1817, Mississippi - a "slave state" - Alabama -"slave state"-1819 Illinois - "free state" - 1818 Missouri - "slave state" - 1821 Maine "free state"- 1820 Arkansas - "slave state" - 1836 Michigan - "free state" - 1837 Florida - "slave state" - 1845 Iowa "free state" -1846 Texas - "slave state" 1845 Wisconsin - "free state" - 1848 California (One pro-slavery Senator) but a "free state" - 1850 Minnesota "free state" - 1858 Oregon "free state" - 1859 Kansas "free state" -1861.

If you check out this link here, you can see for yourself that there were more people living in "free states" than "slave states", and of those that did live in "slave states" not all of them were slave holders, so it your imagination is overactive, to put it mildly.

Anyway, my answer would be that we got in this position by continually engaging our military in foreign wars for various unscrupulous reasons while simultaneously lowering the highest marginal tax rate to near non-existance. On top of that, the epidemic of instituting tax loopholes for wealthy individuals and corporations has virtually made them immune to taxation. Some, like Exxon Mobile pay no taxes at all while at the same time they are somehow privy to government subsidies. Go figure.

Your answer of continual wars is part of the problem, but then you go off the deep end with "tax loopholes". Since there were no "tax loopholes" prior to the "income tax", then "tax loopholes" cannot explain how we as a nation not only failed to pay off the national debt with an "income tax" but instead are now at $15 trillion plus. You have, of course, ignored the welfare programs, the aid to foreign nations, and a plethora of other federal expenses taken on since that federal government began soaking everyone.

Now, maybe you can explain just how further reducing and/or cutting off the government's source of revenue will fix this problem. This one I gotta hear.

Where you hopelessly, haplessly and profoundly ignorantly attempt to blame this $15 trillion dollar debt on a combination of wars and naming corporations as the beast, it is one single corporation that is the problem and the beast and that is the federal government. It is an out of control fat lazy beast. How do you handle such a beast? You starve the beast.

In terms of the debt, that debt grew as it did because banks and nations stupidly kept loaning money to the U.S. based on this "income tax" and people being viewed as chattel. It was a bad investment by banks and other nations and stupid investments usually wind up in losing money. Starve the beast, dissolve the Federal Reserve, demand Congress do their job and begin coining money with precious metal, and tell the nations creditors they had no lawful authority to use the American people as collateral.

End standing armies, end federal plunder programs, and go back to a government established to do what the Preamble say's it is supposed to do. Simple? Hell no! It is the only way out of this mess. Your solutions will do nothing but perpetuate the same and the national debt will keep climbing until some of those creditors decide they can collect on us.

Since we brought up Lincoln. How many people know what Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act said about churches and non-profits?The bill was directed at the Territory of Utah. Which was ran by a Mormon cult Brigham Young and all offices of the Territory was ran by your standing in the Mormon Church. He passed a law saying no non-profit or church could be valued at more than $50,000 in any state. Because even then they new it was a problem when the Mormons tried to create a Mormon Vatican in Utah.

rs6.loc.gov.../llsl012.db&recNum=532

Sec3 bottom of the page.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


If you can't even understand how slaves not only kept their owners out of debt, but also made most of them rich to boot, then I doubt there's much use in debating these issues with you. You do realize that slaves worked the plantations for subsistence while their owners kept all the profits do you not? Fundamentally, the same thing is still happening today at the hands of minimum wage and below living wage employers.

Furthermore, I never said that tax loopholes were here before income tax. It's you that brings stupid statements like that into this conversation. You're not a Fox News contributor are you?

Tax loopholes, (which came after the institution of the income tax) for those of you too ignorant to figure that out on your own, have completely corrupted the system to the point that it cannot function as designed. In other words, the income tax system was supposed to bring in revenue sufficient to operate our government but because many evade taxation via tax loopholes, it's doomed to fail before it ever gets started. On top of that, money spent on lobbyist to get these loopholes enacted is also, in many cases, tax deductible.

I for one can't wait to see you hold back our creditors as you "starve the beast." I'm quite sure that they would be more than willing to wait until your through starving it, to collect their money. I also look forward to the day when I get to carry ten pounds of coins around to pay for anything.

Our nation has evolved as time has gone by and everything is not perfect but dragging us back to the stone age isn't the answer either. Personally, I believe that the policies you advocate would be quite destructive to America and would literally bring us down overnight.

reply to post by Flatfish


If you cannot understand basic principles of economy you are just going to keep floundering with pointless arguments.

Thomas Jefferson is just one example of a slave holder with massive debts and financial failure!

Then there is this fact:

"King Cotton" ruined the land through "land butchery" (excessive cultivation). This caused population to travel West and Northwest. Small farmers sold their land to large planters, and the South became monopolistic. Many slave owners went bankrupt because they invested more in land and slaves than they could handle. Slaves were worth around $1200 each in total investment, and they might purposely injure themselves or run away. The South repelled foreign immigration, which accounted for a large part of the North's power (4.4% pop. south was foreign, 18.7% pop. north was foreign).

This is an absurd argument and the issue of slavery has nothing at all to do with income taxation. All you have managed to do is reveal your profound ignorance of economics.

Furthermore, I never said that tax loopholes were here before income tax.

I didn't say you did, what I pointed out was that "tax loopholes" cannot explain why we are now in a $15 trillion dollar debt, since we were only in a $2 billion dollar debt before "tax loopholes" were even invented. "Tax loopholes" have nothing to do with this nations outrageous debt problem.

Tax loopholes, (which came after the institution of the income tax) for those of you too ignorant to figure that out on your own, have completely corrupted the system to the point that it cannot function as designed. In other words, the income tax system was supposed to bring in revenue sufficient to operate our government but because many evade taxation via tax loopholes, it's doomed to fail before it ever gets started. On top of that, money spent on lobbyist to get these loopholes enacted is also, in many cases, tax deductible.

You need to go back and re-read what I wrote, sport. If you sincerely think people are going to buy your strawman now, you're deluded.

The income tax was not passed "to bring in revenue sufficient to operate our government", the government was all ready operating when income tax in 1913 was imposed. The income tax was a wealth redistribution scheme:

Aside from an attempt to float an income tax to pay for the Spanish-American war, the income tax largely disappeared as a major issue. Nonetheless, the Democratic Party, turning its back on its Jeffersonian heritage, endorsed a constitutional income tax amendment in their party platforms of 1896 and 1908.[11]

In 1908 Theodore Roosevelt endorsed both an income tax and an inheritance tax, becoming the first President of the United States to openly propose that the political power of government be used to redistribute wealth. Meanwhile, factions within the Congress cobbled together a compromise amendment and in 1909, President Taft, known to be favorable to an income tax, if not necessarily an amendment, stated that although ratification may be difficult, he had "become convinced that a great majority of the people of this country are in favor of vesting the National Government with power to levy an income tax."

The government was not in any danger of crumbling, it was operating just fine, with the exception that it was filled with politicians and their stupid rhetoric. Taft's remarks about vesting the national government with the power to levy and income tax were either disingenuous or profoundly ignorant, because Congress all ready had the power to tax income, as you pointed out in earlier post with the Civil War income tax.

I for one can't wait to see you hold back our creditors as you "starve the beast." I'm quite sure that they would be more than willing to wait until your through starving it, to collect their money. I also look forward to the day when I get to carry ten pounds of coins around to pay for anything.

No you do not look forward to that. You've all ready made clear what you look forward to and that is plundering charities for your own personal belief system. It's bad enough you advocate plundering hard working people but now you want to steal from charities. Sigh.

The United States was not in danger of falling apart? The Mormon War or replacement of Brigham Young as governor of Utah was because they decided to forget US law and decided to follow the Mormon way of life as the law of the land. Abraham Lincoln was ready to go to war with them and thats why he passed the Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act which did more than stop multiple wives. It targeted the Mormon church that was growing into a government of itself placing people in the positions of the government by there standing in the Mormon church. They were collecting and building a wealth that no other state or the federal government had. But Lincoln got side tracked with the other problem that was going on called the Civil War which was more than just slaves. It was a war over the income desparity and the lack of followig the US federal laws. Lincoln decided to go to war with the south and leave the Mormons to the west for another time. The US governmet was at the point of falling apart when Lincoln was in office. The west going to the Mormons and the south going to the plantation owners.

reply to post by JBA2848

The United States was not in danger of falling apart?

In 1913 at the time the "income tax" was passed the government was operating just fine. Not the 1860's, 1913. Understand?

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


How about in 1860 was the first tax exemption for indians. Yes the federal government made states do a Census on how many people there were and then taxed the state for those people. But there was a problem when the south decided that blacks did not count because they were not people but slaves. So they turned out to be the frst tax dodgers. And then the Mormons decided to play the same kind of games with not paying taxes to Utah to pay to the federal government. The taxes were still there. Just not placed on the income. They were placed on the number of people. But the south decided slaves don't count only white men count. The plantation owners themselves. The Mormons just tried to hide like they still do today.
www.archives.gov...

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


You act like the governent never had funding f any kind until the income tax. You act like they worked for free. But they did have funding from the states and the states from the people. Today the state and federal government has reversed with the federal government taking in the money and giving it back to the states. But you hopfully can see why they lost trust in the states to do the right thing.

Originally posted by JBA2848
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

 

You act like the governent never had funding f any kind until the income tax. You act like they worked for free. But they did have funding from the states and the states from the people. Today the state and federal government has reversed with the federal government taking in the money and giving it back to the states. But you hopfully can see why they lost trust in the states to do the right thing.

No I do not, you act like I act like that. The federal government was created by the Constitution, among other reasons, for the express purpose of granting Congress the complete and plenary power of taxation. A point I've all ready made. Congress was all ready taxing prior to the passage of income taxes.

Relying on strawman arguments does not help your cause.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


What strawman.
You just wish to cherry pick things and when something comes up you don't like you change the time frame of the argument to time you better perfer. Taxes have allways been there it just changed how they collected them. You can't go to the time they changed how they collected them and say delet this way of collecting them and don't worry about changing back to the old way it never existed. Reminds me of Bush and the Atomic bombs mishap. He decided to delet the colored war plans for attacking other countries like Russia. But when he deleted that colored war plans he also deleted tracking the location of and readness of the atomic weapons bacause that was part of the colored war plans. Then you had atomic bombs being flown across the country and ended up at a airbase that went on lock down saying what the hell are these atomic bombs doing in my hangar. Thats also part of the problem with Ron Paul he wants to cut the trees down and tare out the roots with out figuriing out a way to replace what the tree was planted for growing fruit. He would starve to death becasue the tree had a few dead leaves that needed pruning.

reply to post by JBA2848

What strawman.

In spite of the fact that I have several times spoke of Congress' complete and plenary power of taxation, in spite of the fact that I have declared that taxes are necessary to grease the wheels of government, in spite of all this and more, you declare:

You act like the governent never had funding f any kind until the income tax.

That strawman.

Yea for bill maher, he attacked a very fine charity to progress his own political agenda. Yet, he may have a point, I have become somewhat concerned by the large billboards posted near the front of large mega stores. 'How nice', I think when I see how much walmart has donated to the community, but is it true? I am constantly asked by these stores for my donations and my concern is that these large corporations may be using the charitable donations of their patrons for their own tax write-off. I hope that I am wrong, but if this were true, it would be very underhanded, and in my opinion, downright criminal.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


Heres a couple of places where I see problems with what you keep saying.

This is an absurd argument and the issue of slavery has nothing at all to do with income taxation.

Slavery did have something to do with taxation because at the time the tax was a flat tax per person. Slave owners refused to count slaves as a person. Cutting the amount of taxes a state had to pay the federal government. They ended up with a civil war because of this and finally ended up changing the way taxes were collected. The federal government collected the tax themselves and now pass part back to the states. Before it was the other way the state collected taxes and turned it into the federal government.

If you check out this link here, you can see for yourself that there were more people living in "free states" than "slave states", and of those that did live in "slave states" not all of them were slave holders, so it your imagination is overactive, to put it mildly.

The reason the flat tax paid to the federal government by states collected from the people did not work and part of the reason for the civil war is because they only count white men and women not slaves and refused to pay taxes on the many slaves they had that non slave states paid taxes on.

And just to be fair I will call it federal taxes which is now called income taxes and befor that change it was basicly a flat tax per person. The civil war was about who a person is. The tax base a person. They changed the argument by going after income to avoid the who is a person problem.

Big business and the rich can donate money to colleges and organizations and write it off. They then don't have to pay money in to the general fund and this gives programs like NASA and colleges more money to work with creating the possibility of untraceable money expenditures and alliances of these government programs. Donations by the Elite allow Harvard to have better conditions for students than a small college. This unbalanced funding isn't really fair because it in essence is all government money. What rich person gives a university a contribution without deducting the total donation. Same with NASA and many other government allowed programs.

reply to post by rickymouse


Its the earmarks of the elite.
Would Bloombergs daughters horse riding club of even got government money if Mitt did not ear mark the tax money to her horse riding club? Do they even deserve it? Charity donations are nothing more than ear marks for the rich.