Mortgage Interest Deduction on the Slicing Block
- Thread starter runeight
- Start date
Not me! I'm watching these pinheads. Add to that the destruction of American business, banking, trade and freedoms as we know it now.
Obobo is betting "people don't pay attention" but in fact they are.
Remember, it's a crisis and we need to act now!
But my favorite from this azz hat..
..is in my sig line.
r8
I just hope I am dead and gone before the final part of this transition occurs... (got my doubts however) .. worst part... "I told you so" is not even going to help...
Not me! I'm watching these pinheads. Add to that the destruction of American business, banking, trade and freedoms as we know it now.
Obobo is betting "people don't pay attention" but in fact they are.
Remember, it's a crisis and we need to act now!
But my favorite from this azz hat..
..is in my sig line.
r8
winlite
Registered
Has nothing to do with my personal motives for giving. The fact is that this will result in a reduction of charitable giving overall. The government spends three dollars for each one given to entitlements or welfare.
<--- Where did you get that figure?
Quote:
Originally Posted by SilverSurfer https://www.hayabusa.org/forum/poli...on-slicing-block-post1892648.html#post1892648
If the only reason you give to charities is to get a tax deduction you have a lot more to worry about.
People do not give based on tax write offs... (well unless they are just stupid I suppose) they do it because they believe in something..
Originally Posted by SilverSurfer https://www.hayabusa.org/forum/poli...on-slicing-block-post1892648.html#post1892648
If the only reason you give to charities is to get a tax deduction you have a lot more to worry about.
SS you seem to think that these write offs happen at 100%.. could not be further from the truth.. only a small percentage of these contributions come out of your taxes.. You are FAR FAR better off to keep your money in your pocket and give nothing at all.. (well unless you can give a few bucks away to drop a tax bracket).. You can give $5000 to charity and only get a few hundred in relief from taxes...
People do not give based on tax write offs... (well unless they are just stupid I suppose) they do it because they believe in something..
I completely agree that people give because they care. I also know you don't get a one for one write off. That being the case what difference does it make if the deduction is reduced?
I thought I heard President Obama (again, showing respect for the office) say clearly, "If you make under $250,000 a year, your taxes will NOT GO UP ONE SINGLE PENNY"....but if you remove this deduction....I guess a tax increase by any other name....??
it does not matter, just keep taking every nickle you can... eventually it will be a quarter and then a buck...
I will cease my donations as of this year in order to replace the money taken in taxes.. does not make a bit of difference to me at all.. I just re-adjust my tithing to make up for missing $$ that was there last year..
Now the liberals view can try and take more from the people making $100K (250K went away a long time ago) or more to cover my greed...
ya to like 28c on the dollar
Don't try to confuse them with fact Randy. I did that before the election. When they talk about how they think or what someone said, everyone it supposed to accept it as fact. When someone does the research and digs out hard numbers, if it isn't a quote from someone famous, it must not be correct.
The difference is it is a tax increase in sheeps clothing to deceive folks who believe like you, that its only a little bit, so why worry about it. It is a tax increase for everyone who donated to charity and can itemize their deductions. Just becasue Obama doesn't change the tax bracket doesn't mean he isn't raising the taxes of people making less than $250,000/year. So if he is using these tactics hide the fact that he is raising taxes regardless of income, that means that his words have no merit. Its important because it is a measure of his integrity.
Last edited:
This pisses me off beyond belief.
People have to live SOMEwhere. If they are incentivized to save their money and buy a house, then their money goes to something that is not only tax deductible but helps them build a bit of equity which, ideally, could be used for a nest egg at retirement.
Without the incentives, people may just decide to f*&% it and just rent. Okay, then only the people who are wealthy and have money to buy homes to rent out will own houses and they will just continue to get more wealthy.
It isn't a benefit just for the wealthy. Who was that pinhead, anyway?
Jeez Louize.
--Wag--
People have to live SOMEwhere. If they are incentivized to save their money and buy a house, then their money goes to something that is not only tax deductible but helps them build a bit of equity which, ideally, could be used for a nest egg at retirement.
Without the incentives, people may just decide to f*&% it and just rent. Okay, then only the people who are wealthy and have money to buy homes to rent out will own houses and they will just continue to get more wealthy.
It isn't a benefit just for the wealthy. Who was that pinhead, anyway?
Jeez Louize.
--Wag--
Now I'm even more pissed off.
Regarding charitable deductions, it's not about whether or not people will give, they are going to give anyway. But with the deduction, they are able to give more than they would otherwise. The big givers in the 49% tax brackets can increase their million-dollar gift to 1.49 million. (That's not the right math but it makes the point.)
So what it boils down to, is that instead of giving to charitable organizations, people will have it taken from them by big government. Can anyone PLEASE explain how this is in ANY way beneficial to the public?
How many organizations will have to scale back? More homeless people will be on the street, unfed, uncared for because the shelters will shut down and the churches simply will not have the money to help. It simply won't be there.
Again, HOW is this in any way good to reduce the funding for charitable organizations?
Fact is, it isn't. End of story.
--Wag--
Regarding charitable deductions, it's not about whether or not people will give, they are going to give anyway. But with the deduction, they are able to give more than they would otherwise. The big givers in the 49% tax brackets can increase their million-dollar gift to 1.49 million. (That's not the right math but it makes the point.)
So what it boils down to, is that instead of giving to charitable organizations, people will have it taken from them by big government. Can anyone PLEASE explain how this is in ANY way beneficial to the public?
How many organizations will have to scale back? More homeless people will be on the street, unfed, uncared for because the shelters will shut down and the churches simply will not have the money to help. It simply won't be there.
Again, HOW is this in any way good to reduce the funding for charitable organizations?
Fact is, it isn't. End of story.
--Wag--
I think we need to put this into the perspective of overall social welfare. Will society and citizens be better off as a whole if there is a shift from donations to taxes? More than ever, we need look beyond what is best for nonprofits and think about what is best for all of us.
Nonprofit organizations currently rely on only 12% of revenue from private giving and the largest organizations seem to benefit the most from these private philanthropic sources. In addition, we know from a good deal of research that philanthropic giving is inherently fragmented, elitist, and does not do very well in getting to areas most in need.
I would much prefer that we create institutions that guarantee a baseline of support for citizens in this country (which government can provide and nonprofits cannot do very well) and then look to nonprofits to fill in gaps from there. If this means that we need to ask the wealthy to pay more taxes to make this happen, and that some nonprofits might be negatively affected, that is a tolerable tradeoff.
Now before you begin bashing the government as not being able to accomplish this, I have the same concern. I think our government has the ability to do this but with the current culture in place it will be very difficult to achieve. Couple that with the polarization we are seeing and it just gets worse. Unless everyone decides to pull together to make our country better we will continue to bickert about this liberal or that conservative and never get anywhere no matter who is in office. If we continue to base our decisions on how much we can get for ourselves or whether or not someone is getting something for nothing, then we will continue to get nowhere.
Our government has proven over and over again that it can't control it's own spending and afterward, can't even tell you how it was spent or if it did any good.
The very very large non-profits derive a small part of their revenue from donations, it's true. But the little guys and the local churches and rescue missions have a much larger percentage coming from the $10 and $15 donations every week from their local supporters. Some get close to 100%.
I'll grant you that the big non-profits sometimes have the same problems, however, it's far easier to detect where there is waste or graft and send your money elsewhere.
--Wag--
The very very large non-profits derive a small part of their revenue from donations, it's true. But the little guys and the local churches and rescue missions have a much larger percentage coming from the $10 and $15 donations every week from their local supporters. Some get close to 100%.
I'll grant you that the big non-profits sometimes have the same problems, however, it's far easier to detect where there is waste or graft and send your money elsewhere.
--Wag--
The proposed change would start at the $208,500 yearly income bracket. I'll fall a bit short this year
It should be $250,000 to match his campaign statements Regardless, I'd like to see Obama use that scalpel in different areas and leave the mortgage interest deduction alone.Pinheadeous Busayscious
SS, you have the system backwards from the way it was created. All be it that it seems to be the movement ot turn the country upside down. The chain is supposed to be local first, then state, finally federal filling in the gaps. With Katrina, the local did nothing, and then got reelected. The state did some and the federal ended up running the show. The feds got bashed for not doing what was the local government responsibilitiy. If we don't get this alignment straight, and keep moving more and more of the local responsibilities to the federal level, things will continue to spiral out of control.
Similar threads
