This Cannot Be True

[admin]

I saw this on Professor Mankiw's website (http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com//):

Conservatives give more money, more time, and more blood than liberals.

http://www.arthurbrooks.net/excerpt.html

http://www.beliefnet.com/story/204/story_20419_1.html

Too bad, given that we all know that it's mostly Neanderthal blood.

Anybody else participating in the Father Joe walk tomorrow morning?  I know, it's a bad instrument (Catholic Church), but it's a good cause (support for his homeless shelters and rehab programs).

[an]

So, jg, how much money, time, and blood did you give last year?

[PerryChase]

Nothing wrong with religious groups so long as they do charity. I always donate my unwanted stuff and cars to the Salvation Army. They pickup promptly.

Nothing wrong with living a pious life either.

But it’s not OK for religious people to barge in and run people’s lives. Live and let live.

Giving to a church is not necessarily giving to charity in my view. Anyone care to build that next mega-church?

[poorgradstudent]

Many churches do wonderful social work. Helping the poor was one of Jesus’s most important messages (along with loving one’s neighbor and tolerance). It’s sad to me that G.W. Bush hypocritically promotes himself as a christian while taking money from the poor and giving it to the richest Americans in the form of tax breaks and corporate welfare.

There are some fantastic liberal churches out there that accept homosexuality and understand that promoting birth control, not abstinence is the best way to lower the abortion rate.

I do wonder how the donation statistics would skew if you factored out general donations to churches as charitable giving. (I’d allow giving at church to specific charitable causes to still be counted, but not those that pay pastor’s salaries, building and maintainence costs, etc).

[North County Jim]

I’d allow giving at church to specific charitable causes to still be counted, but not those that pay pastor’s salaries, building and maintainence [sic] costs, etc.

Have you seen the palaces that many charities and non-profits call home? Go check out the national HQ for United Way or any of the environmental groups.

Have you any idea what the people running these outfits pay themselves?

Should donations to these groups be tax-deductible?

[Anonymous]

Something that clearly irritated me, and still does, is that the Catholic Church built that darn cathedral in Los Angeles in the early ’00s. Cost: ~$200MM. Ridiculous.

That ~$200MM was much better spent on the fine work in India, Africa, Central America, etc. that the Catholic Church and the Protestant denominations do.

Big overhead and ridiculous salaries are why I quit giving to United Way, Red Cross, and Goodwill long ago. The favorite destination for our family’s cash is the Salvation Army.

an, I’ll ignore your rude question.

[PerryChase]

I would never defend the lavish spending of non-profits. However, non-profits have to file tax returns and justify their status.

Churches don’t have that requirement so that their spending is completely under the radar. (someone please correct me if I’m wrong).

Churches also do not pay property taxes. I’m not sure if other types of non-profits have to pay property taxes. Do churches have to pay sales/use tax? I know that when I buy something at the Salvation Army thrift store, the purchase is not taxable.

I hope that someone who has knowledge of tax laws related to churches and non-profit would elucidate us.

[bgates]

poorgradstudent, when you say “taking money from the poor and giving it to the richest Americans,” what money is being taken from the poor? The Congressional Budget Office is under the impression that the poorest 20% of Americans have a disproportionately low tax burden.

[Mexico Resident]

“Conservatives give more money, more time, and more blood than liberals.”
“This Cannot Be True”
That’s called denial.

[Anonymous]

Just a philosophical point: we don’t give to medical or environmental causes. Giving to the American Heart Association or Nature Conservancy seems selfish, to me, because I and folks like me — middle class/upper middle class and those who enjoy the outdoors — are the primary beneficiaries of those organizations.

We only give to help-for-the-poor-along-with-counseling (Salvation Army and Father Joe) and two groups that support families of fallen veterans.

Mexico Resident, the title of the thread is tongue-in-cheek: there are only a few Christian conservatives who participate on this site (‘Daniel in the lion’s den’), and I’m one of them.

[Mexico Resident]

OK, I stand corrected. But what is wrong in giving to a cause that helps humanity (yourself included)? I wouldn’t say you are the primary beneficiary, it would be humanity.

[CardiffBaseball]

I think as a conservative it is important to hatch up devious schemes to extract dollars from the poor (both working and non-working). Think about it, there are a ton of poor people, and if I could just sneak some dollars out of their pockets, I could give it to the corporate backers of my party.

Talk about tired cliches poorgradstudent, are you studying some “social science” in grad school?

Newsflash, tax policy is not a zero-sum game. Cutting taxes on fat cats, does not mean raising them for the working poor. Ever had the pleasure of filling out a tax return for a single parent female? My sister had a child and was working crappy retail jobs, and with standard deduction, earned income credits, and child credits, she definitely wasn’t paying any taxes and was actually receiving money by the time her tax return came back. Note that I am not saying I disagree with this, I just failed to see how Bush is screwing her over.

One can only conclude that you look all all income as belonging to the government, and by their benevolence, they distribute that back to us. When you cut taxes, you simply reduce the government’s budget, you aren’t taking money from the poor. It was never their money in the first place.

[JJGittes]

Wow Cardiffbaseball, you obviously just don’t get it. That reduction of the top marginal fed. rate from 39.6% to 35% by the evil R’s was nothing more than a giveaway to the rich. Sure, in Cali. the rich pay a combined state/fed income tax rate of about 45%, not including SS and medicare (both sides if self-employed). But, hey, they can afford it, and other people really need that money.

Also, you simply must realize that a reduction in benefits to the poor is clearly no different from a tax increase on a middle class person. In both instances, the government is taking something away from somebody, right?

Please, get with it!

[L_Thek_onomics]

“But, hey, they can afford it, and other people really need that money.”

Say no to socializm! What about learning to be productive and earn the money, instead of being a bum? Or you’re saying they’re so dumb, can’t make it without taking it from the achievers?

L Thek

[CardiffBaseball]

The government was extracting 39.5%, and it went down to 35%. So what? Why was it 39% to begin with? Besides my point is that they were not slashing programs. Any cuts in programs were merely cuts in the planned increases in the budget.

In any case, your language and use of “giveaway” indicates you believe it was their money to begin with.

Again working poor people pay very little in federal taxes as I pointed out. Deductions, and working credits wiped out having much of a tax liability. I don’t see you trumpeting that the initial 15% went down to 10%? Why is that 5% any less important.

Sounds like you are a socialist just wanting to stick it to the man.

[Author]

Posts