http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120787129943306485.html?mod=googlenews_wsj I love this. But why not? So many complain about deficits. Why not take the bull by the horns and donate to the world's largest charity.
It's pretty amazing that they got $2.6 million. Make it tax deductible and you might get more takers. As it is, it makes more sense to donate to a charity than to donate to the IRS.
No -- the IRS gets more money, and it's more likely that people would donate if they got the same benefit as if they donated to other tax-deductible charities. I'm not sure the WSJ should be ridiculing those who chose to donate $2.6 million with no benefit to themselves whatsoever. Who has done more to help the US deficit situation -- the anonymous contributors to the IRS, or Republicans like Campbell who helped pass the budgets with the biggest deficits in history?
I think they were ridiculing the fact that only $2.6 million was collected. That's .000008666% of the federal budget.
Again, that's $2.6 million more than should have been collected. $2.6 million which people gave with no benefit to themselves (unlike charitable donations which reduce taxable income). If everyone were acting rationally, that number would be zero. Isn't it a good thing that there are people who love this country so much that they give their own money to reduce the budget deficits which the Bush administration and the Republican Party have given us?
And that's the point. And the reason why this act is stupid. It's supposed to prove that people don't really want to pay higher taxes, right? But there's a material difference between accepting, even voting for, higher taxes, and simply donating one's money to the Treasury.
Sure, that's very nice of them and all, but it's still a curiously low figure considering the number of millionaires and billionaires in this country who have spoken out against Bush's tax cuts. $2.6 million? George Soros wipes his ass with that much. Obviously, some people decided to practice what they preach, and I'm very grateful that they did, but most did not.
Again, there is a tremendous difference between advocating higher taxes and donating one's money to the Treasury.
That's true. Those who favor higher taxes but wouldn't voluntarily donate money to the government would say "I'm willing to pay more in taxes only if everyone who earns the same as me also pays more." Fair enough, but it's interesting what would happen if people adopted the same philosophy towards charity. "I'll only donate to charity if everyone else is donating to charity."
Again, we get a benefit for donating to charity -- it reduces our taxable income. Plus, we get to choose the charity so we can pick one which favors our particular interests. I would think that right wingers would be in favor of this. There's lots of charities which help the poor or homeless or animals or whatever so we lefties have lots of options, but I don't know of any charities which are providing ammo and vehicles and gas for soldiers in Iraq -- that's only coming out of the federal budget and contributing to our huge deficit. If you guys want to support the troops with more than just a bumper sticker, and get a tax break along the way, here's your chance!
Oh, please. That is totally absurd. I'll agree to pay more taxes for research, health care and deficit reduction, but I'm not about to make a voluntary contribution so Matt in the Hat can keep his taxes lower.
To take this silliness to its logical silly conclusion... Unless you take your happy ass over to Iraq to get shot at, you shouldn't be advocating anything short of an immediate withdrawal of American troops.
This is actually an excellent argument. Congress should call for a draft. That would clarify the country's true feelings over Iraq immensely.
Now that's a silly argument. Joining the military on a voluntary basis requires integrity. Being drafted by your government is oppressive. The logic is still valid.
Does supporting the war without personal sacrifice (be it in the form of a draft or extra taxes) also require integrity?
Perhaps the point is liberals are willing to impose higher taxes on others, but when it comes to their own pocket books they suddenly become stingy?
I am no Republican but let's be honest here. The Dems voted overwhelmingly for the war and Patriot Act and have done little to stop either since they took control of Congress.
This is a false argument. Most conservatives and liberals agree that some level of taxation is desirable. The debate is the level of that taxation. Buffet, Soros, and others of means have made the argument that the current level is too low, the current level of spending is too, high, or both. To say "fine, why don't you just pay more? You have the money." may make one feel good, but it is not a solution, nor does it address the debate in a useful way.
Doesn’t seem seem like a false argument to me, especially after taking a peek at that Obama’s tax returns.
Didn't mean to pick on you; more the general idea behind this thread. The idea that being in favor of a higher/lower tax level is a different argument than whether one is willing or not to voluntarily pay above one's own tax rate. It's the Voluntary payment of taxes that I'm calling a false debate. No one seriously considers that as a real solution to anything. In any case, I don't see how looking at someone's tax return would have anything to do with the tax level debate. And that, to me, is the real debate between conservatives and liberals.
I personally think it an abomination to pay more than you owe. The government will skim off 40% and you’ve no idea where the other 60% will go. It makes much more sense to send the money to an efficient charity of your choice.
I just wished the government stopped playing with the tax code. Both parties are guilty of making the tax code a big joke. Ask yourself this question. Why does the cost of a college education continue to exceed the inflation rate year after year? For the answer, look at all the government programs in place to help students pay for their education. It seems anytime the government gets involved in social policy prices tend to rise. For a good example of this, look at the housing market. The government has given potential homeowners tons of incentives to buy a house. Ultimately this led to an affordablity issue. Now we have a housing bust and a great many responsible taxpayers will have to pay. I dont mean to get off topic, but it seems the real problem is the government only helps a select few when they get involved policy wise.