Wednesday, July 27, 2011

Thinking Of Charity

It occurs to me that a significant part -- probably not the larger part, but definitely present -- of the "tax loopholes for rich people" the Left decries would be charitable giving.

That would be the same Left that sneers that our government ought to give more to other countries and do more for the poor in this country, too.

So, work it out: if the tax burden falls disproportionately on the middle class (and it does -- there are so many of us, you see) and our would-be philosopher-kings tell us unenlightened rubes in flyover country the Feds should hand out more handouts while "the wealthy" should receive fewer tax breaks, they're really saying that it's better to mulct funds from the middle class and have all-wise central planners dole them out (while taking a little something for themselves and their pet Priuses or Lexii) instead of J. Random Millionaire writing a whacking huge check to the Brothers Of The Perpetual Breadline.

I'm thinkin' these kids were told the Bible story about the widow's mite but got it a little wrong, assuming it would be even more blessed if a couple Legionaries shook her down for the cash and made sure she wasn't holdin' any out.

15 comments:

Anonymous said...

I think its more about control.

If Ms. Bobbi gives the Feed the Folks a $1000, those people will probably be grateful to her.

If Uncle Sam takes the same money as taxes from Ms. Bobbi and gives $500 to Feed the Folks, the people will think well of the government and vote for them again. Notice half of what got collected goes for overhead.

Besides you and I can not be counter on to give money to the correct causes.

Gerry

Gerry

Brian J. said...

I heard someone on the Bob and Tom Show (as I was passing through on the radio presets) comment that some right-winger shared some food with him, and the right-thinking fellow rejoined "Dude, that's socialism!"

Oh, how some people do not understand charity versus compulsion.

Brandoch Daha said...

They get the individual mixed up with government. They think Jesus was giving orders to Herod about what to do with other people's lives, not advice to his friends about what to do with their own.

They think if it's a mitzvah to make love to your wife on Friday night, then it's a double mitzvah for the First Infantry Division to do the same (provided they don't stay overnight, because that would violate the Third Amendment and upset the ACLU).

North said...

Their ideas always have the opposite effect.

Take the government home loan effort as an example. Loans were extended to a huge group of people - frequently lower class black/Hispanic - to get them into homes. There was a disparity in class that the gov't attempted to correct. The anticipated result was that the 'have nots' would now have homes and that would be 'fair'.

The actual result? Viewed as racial groups, there is now a GREATER financial/wealth divide between whites and blacks/Hispanics because the people that couldn't afford a home (but got into one anyway) are under water.

The government needs to govern the country according to the constitution, NOT fix social "problems".

BobG said...

I think Gerry has hit the nail on the head.

Bubblehead Les. said...

Define Rich. Then realize, according to the Left, one day after they set up Laws to Tax the Rich, whatever the Bottom Cutoff minus $1 WAS under the Old rules, that'll be the NEW Top Tier of "Rich", and "They MUST PAY their Fair Share!"

Why do you think we live under a "Progressive" Tax System?

og said...

Indeed. Whether you follow a specific creed or are just intrinsically decent sans religion, it is moral and correct to aid those less fortunate than you. It is the absolute height of immorality to remove by force from individuals that which they have lawfully earned and distribute it to others regardless of actual need, following instead a plan which rewards those who vote to elect those people into office.

The Bad Yogi said...

I'm sorry, this would funny if it weren't so sad.
Listen, if you give the people over at Feed the Folks get $1000, you go on the "bug you relentlessly" list for 10 years. You get nothing else. You've got to be in the $100K-$1M range to get attention.
Further, the looholes, which the WSJ documents all the time (they call it capital gains), are when people don't pay the same taxes on money that comes from ownership as YOU do on wages. THAT'S the single biggest loophole. I know, I take advantage of it every year. I have no choice, except to add $ to the bottom line of my 1040.
I'm with og in this, butsince there aremore people and more roads and more fire dept's thanI can supporton my own, I do appreciate others pitching in. And I support a progressive tax base: I pay more as a shore of my income (however I earn it) than someone who makes less than I do, up to a point. And we can debate whether that point is set correctly, or how to calculate it, but without a progressive structure, people who earn less will pay more as a percentage than otherwise.
But Roger Aisles desn't want you to talk about that.

Roberta X said...

"without a progressive structure, people who earn less will pay more as a percentage than otherwise."

Bad Yogi, I'm guessing you don't work in accounting or anything to do wth maths, right? 'Cos that is exactly backwards. If you wan people to pay the same as a percentage, then you would want a flat tax.

...Whereas I think Congress ought to be obliged to hold raffles and bake sales. Give them money and they just bomb people in far off distant lands and occasionally Philly. But that's just me and my horrid, unloving ways.

Also, I specifically did not mention .gov-built infrastructure (which I think should be funded by yard sales, gov-surplus auctions, raffles and user fees, 'cos I am evil and heartless) but rather actual charity type charity -- you know, "aid rushed to earthquake victims" and the like.

Last but not least, I personally do not care a bit if the Salvation Army, Juvenile Diabetes or the Wheeler Mission notices me when I slip 'em a spare $75. I hope they cram that money into the helping-people account and if it would cost 'em a dime to tell me "thanks," I would just as soon they not spend it. But I can't make 'em not spend it, so yeah, they send me stuff which goes into the recycle bin, so what?

I'm thinking you don't.

Ritchie said...

One of the harshest things you can say to a neo-Democrat, that will make any sense to them, is "We don't need you. Have a nice day, and please take it over there."

DES said...

Comes from the basic liberal view that the best charity is mutual compulsory charity.

Firehand said...

I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.
James Madison
1794

Tam said...

"Further, the looholes, which the WSJ documents all the time (they call it capital gains), are when people don't pay the same taxes on money that comes from ownership as YOU do on wages."

Wow. That was word salad.

Couldn't you at least find out what "capital gains" means before trying to use it in a sentence?

Dave_H said...

Jesus. Anyone who was disappointed in Bush for spending too much and supports Obama must have about a hundred pounds worth of brain damage.

CGHill said...

Which is hard to do with a six-ounce brain, but not, I am assured, impossible.