Hey PoP, how are you doing?

Sorry to burst your bubble, but faith based charities in the US distribute 70% of the aid to the poor people and the disabled.

The bulk of the food kitchens for the homeless are faith based organizations. The vast majority of food pantries are faith based organizations. Most job training for the disabled and itinerant is done by faith based groups.

The Salvation Army, Good will Industries, Catholic Charities, Volunteers of America, Jewish Family and Childrens Services, Gleaning for the World, Kingsway Charities, Matthew 25 Ministries and Operation Compassion, all operate with more efficiency than most other organizations.

According to Forbes, faith based charities return a far higher percentage their donations to the needy than other charities.

One in six children in child day care in the US, go to centers operated by churches and/or synagogues. More homeless are sheltered in faith based centers than in any other kind.

The people who donate to these causes are equally mixed between Republican and Democrat, however the Republicans actually do give more, as a percent of their income.

 

Forgive the pun but you're preaching to the choir here, I only give to secular charities (Mostly the air ambulance). I'm also an outspoken atheist, thus don't attend church. In addition I'm also neither a conservative nor a Republican.

However, even when non-secular giving isn't taken into consideration, the amount given to charity remains broadly similar between Republicans and democrats. The types of secular charities do however differ, for example more help is given by liberals to help them homeless, and more help is given by conservatives to help train unemployed people for work. Both equally worthy causes I might add.

 

I believe this to be the most idiotic post I've ever read on this forum.

 

"Their Own Cash". Hmmm...cash, what, that they own and earned and risked to achieve and worked hard to attain? You mean people should have the absolute audacity to expect to keep their own stuff??

God help us all.

 

i agree but its funny that there is some phrase going viral that liberalism is a mental illness when i think conservatism is too. i am fiscally conservative, because money is important, but socially i am rather liberal.

yaztromo is going on about something thirteen years too late. what he says is quite profound for xnxx and maybe he should be a socialogist if there is any such person but fuck you if you are english and fuck me if you are japanese and my type of boy.

 

don't blame right wingers for having a blockage of not wanting to pay higher tax when it doesn't get spent appropriately by their government, this is true of many countries. i don't see much progress here from my viewpoints, we're being sold out to the chinese, we are just letting them taking us over by complete solid stealth and let them! because i will say to you that the chinese will make something of this country and you will have them to thank.

 

That might be true, but an assertion like that should be documented. I could not find confirmation on the internet. What I did find was that charities that help the homeless frequently include job training.

 

no.

 

The Facts About Tax Cuts, Revenue, and Growth, by Michael T. Griffith

JFK’s tax cuts were passed in the summer of 1964. From 1965 to 1968, total federal revenue rose by an impressive 30%, from $117 billion to $153. Some argue that 1968 should be omitted from such calculations, since a tax increase was passed that year. However, the 1968 tax increase (The Revenue and Expenditure Control Act) was not passed until June of that year, so for at least half of 1968 the JFK tax rates were still in effect. In any event, if we omit 1968, we still get a very impressive revenue growth rate: From 1965 to 1967, total federal revenue rose by 27%, from $113 to $149 billion Moreover, if we compare revenue growth from 1961-1964 to 1965-1967, we find that revenue rose more rapidly in the latter period: From 1961 to 1964 revenue grew by 12% ($101 billion to $113 billion), but from 1965 to 1967 revenue grew by 27% ($117 billion to $149 billion): So the rate of revenue growth more than doubled after the tax cuts were passed.

--------

Michael T. Griffith did not document his assertions. In discussing them I am using the following website for data pertaining to the top tax rate. This is provided by Citizens for Tax Justice.

http://www.ctj.org/pdf/regcg.pdf

My data for income tax receipts comes ultimately from the Office of Management and Budget.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=203

During 1964 the top tax rate declined from 91 to 70 percent.

From 1964 to 1965 income tax receipts increased by $95 million.

However, from 1963 to 1964, when the top tax rate remained at 91 percent, income tax receipts increased by $1,109 million.

In 1968 the top tax rate rose to 75.3 percent.

From 1967 to 1968 income tax receipts increased by $7,199.

The complex truth behind the Republican claim that tax cuts pay for themselves is that there is usually more tax revenue from one year to the next because of economic growth and inflation. Nevertheless, tax revenue usually grows more when tax rates remain stable, than when they are reduced. Tax revenue grows even more when tax rates are increased.

 

Going with the copy, cut and paste again DL?

Nice to see you are consistent with your hypocrisy.....

 

President Reagan's tax cuts

During the presidency of Jimmy Carter the top tax rate remained constant at 70 percent. During the presidency of Ronald Reagan this declined to 28 percent.

http://www.ctj.org/pdf/regcg.pdf

During the Reagan administration income tax receipts increased an average of $14,408 million per year.

During the Carter administration income tax receipts increased an average of $21,610.75 million per year.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=203

Here again we find income tax receipts increasing, although they increased more when tax rates remained constant than when they were cut.

Although the Reagan administration was not a time for bold new initiatives in domestic spending, it was a time of considerable increases in military spending. It is was necessary to raise military spending it was necessary to raise taxes to pay for it.

During the Second World War the top tax rate rose from 80 percent to 94 percent.

 

I cut and pasted Michael T. Griffith's reasoning. I refuted it using my reasoning in an argument I composed myself, using the internet only to substantiate factual assertions.

So, how am I being hypocritical?

Anyone can find an argument on the internet that they agree with. If they cannot present that argument in their own words they do not understand it.

In discussing the relationship between tax cuts, tax increases, and tax receipts I am composing my own argument using raw data. Since 1980 Republicans have been claiming that tax cuts generate more tax revenue than tax increases. Several years ago I sent Paul Krugman an e-mail asking him to expose that claim. He never did.

When I found data on income tax receipts I was able to expose it myself.

 

It hasn't just crossed my mind, I fully understand it to be a fact. But that doesn't justify an attitude of "fuck you" to those who are less fortunate than yourself. Oh and I really don't hate rich people, I just don't understand people who feel the need to look down on people less fortunate than themselves to justify their position of superiority. This is entirely my point in this thread.

Are you drunk, high on drugs, a racist or all three?

Me a wiseguy?

​

This is where you just don't get it. Yes you earned your cash but so did Julio who works 60 hours a week to feed his family, and you know what? He worked a darned sight harder than you for a lot less. So why shouldn't you pay a bit more into society. Why don't you realise you are the fortunate one?

This is where your psychology comes in to justify your superior position so you can sleep at night knowing you did everything right and you deserve every cent you own.

Well buddy here's the news, you don't! I don't! We are the fortunate ones who got the breaks. Whether that be fortune or plain DNA.

The differences between you and me? Do I give more to charity? No. Do I appreciate my good luck more than you? Yes. Do I begrudge the wealthy having to pay more taxes they can clearly afford? No. Do I view the less wealthy as a work shy underclass? No.

 

While this does not directly answer your question, the paper it is based on does provide evidence to suggest that political influences do play a role in the types of charities people support. In this a case a hypothetical charity was created that has only one purpose, however it has two different descriptions of that purpose. The report measures the influence the description of the charity has on who its contributors would be. Contrary to the OP's and Umpire's assertion, their research also finds that conservatives are equally as charitable to liberals

http://www.forbes.com/sites/tomwats...es-have-radically-different-views-of-charity/

 

.

 

Agree

I agree with all of this .

Also , I'm a bit to the extreme side of conservative.
I am not a republican. Conservative and republican are 2 different things.
I see the majority of government activities as a barrier to wealth and freedom.
The republicans and democrats are not interested in the interest of the people.
They are just floating their own boats, with no interest other than getting away with as much as they can.

 

OK, charitable donations.

If we assume that a significantly higher proportion of conservative charitable donations go to churches how does the following stack up?

"It takes just over £1000 million a year to run the Church of England, financing its 13,000 parishes and 43 cathedrals.

Around three-quarters (£750 million) comes from worshippers in the parishes. Over the past five years, parishes have increased their giving by around £100 million to meet increased ministry and pension costs."

Look, I'm not saying the church doesn't do good and worthy things, they clearly do, but if you give to a church you are giving a significant proportion of your donation to the running of the church. If you give to a secular charity you are not paying for employing the clergy or the maintenance of it's expensive churches and cathedrals. Surely this is a better deal for the people who need the charitable donations.

 

The difference is some skills are in abundance and others are not. Basic economics determines the value of something based on an equilibrium between demand and supply. While demand for the skilled worker may be less than the Julios of the world, the supply of labour of skilled workers is significantly less. This is why professional sports men and women are paid considerably more than soldiers and nurses.

"Earned" is not an empirical term, and is it not something that is easy to quantify. It is quite fair to say that a person earned their inflated wages by virtue of their specialised skill set.

Income tax is inherently unfair, and should be done away with and exchanged for a more efficient, simple, effective and fair system. A tax on expenditure such as the aptly named "Fair Tax" is a much better approach. Many taxes on expenditure are regressive taxes (i.e. VAT). However the Fair Tax is a progressive tax. The reason for this is it provides a Rebate for every American (or non-american depending on your country). Thus one can live at the poverty level without paying any taxes at all. Aggregate spending above a certain threshold then means 25% of that expenditure goes in tax. Therefore you are taxed depending on the lifestyle you choose to live, rather than how hard you work.

 

Not all non-secular charities are churches.