User Tag List

First 123 Last

Results 11 to 20 of 28

  1. #11
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    4,226

    Default

    People don't pay taxes out of the goodness of their hearts. Wealthy people can afford to pay other people to figure out how to pay as little tax as possible, like using charitable donations as a tax credit.

  2. #12
    deplorable basketcase Tellenbach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    MBTI
    ISTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5
    Posts
    3,953

    Default

    My point is that high taxes discourage charitable giving because taxes are an expense and the more expenses you have, the less likely you are to give to a charity. If you are in the top quintile and living in NYC, your tax burden is over 50%. If half of your income is gone, are you more likely or less likely to give? Conversely, are you really more compassionate if you don't have to worry about paying taxes. I don't think so.

    Will Donors Give Less if Taxed More?
    Senator Rand Paul is alive because of modern medicine and because his attacker punches like a girl.

  3. #13
    Away with the fairies Southern Kross's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    4w5 so/sp
    Posts
    2,912

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tellenbach View Post
    I'm not sure what you are disputing. There is plenty of evidence that show charitable donations going down when taxes are raised.
    Even if that is so (I'd like to see this evidence before I'd believe it), correlation does not imply causation. Besides, the disposable income (which by definition is where charity comes from) of the top percentiles in income are in no way comparable to that of the bottom percentiles. If more taxes make the rich less generous it's because they're so greedy that any extra penny taken unwillingly from their pocket makes them all the more bitter and miserly with the money they do have - which is just about the most pathetic excuse I've ever heard.

    I might also add that since the bottom quintile is likely receiving government assistance, they aren't actually being being charitable with their own money.
    Why do you see this as a problem? They are distributing their limited means have to those that need it more. Isn't that a relative win-win in terms of welfare distribution?

    They are being "compassionate" with the money taxed and redistributed from the top quintiles.
    So taxes = charity now? Oh, please.
    INFP 4w5 so/sp

    I've dreamt in my life dreams that have stayed with me ever after, and changed my ideas;
    they've gone through and through me, like wine through water, and altered the colour of my mind.

    - Emily Bronte

  4. #14
    deplorable basketcase Tellenbach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    MBTI
    ISTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5
    Posts
    3,953

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Southern Kross
    If more taxes make the rich less generous it's because they're so greedy that any extra penny taken unwillingly from their pocket makes them all the more bitter and miserly with the money they do have - which is just about the most pathetic excuse I've ever heard.
    Taxes are an expense. If someone has a lot of expenses, whether it be alimony payments, mortgage payments, or medical bills, they aren't going to be as charitable because donations are an expense as well. This has nothing to do with greed or compassion.

    Why do you see this as a problem? They are distributing their limited means have to those that need it more. Isn't that a relative win-win in terms of welfare distribution?
    My problem is with the NYT article because it's misleading. It misleads by not pointing out that the rich have more expenses and that's why they give less to charities.
    Senator Rand Paul is alive because of modern medicine and because his attacker punches like a girl.

  5. #15
    i love skylights's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    6w7 so/sx
    Socionics
    EII Ne
    Posts
    7,835

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tellenbach View Post
    You're probably correct, but why should we exclude taxes? Money is money. The fairest way to do it would be to add up all the money given to the govt and to charities divided by your total income before taxes (the gross income).

    Compassion Index = (charitable donations + government payments)/ gross income.

    The NYT is pushing a wealth redistribution agenda and this is the second editorial or blog post I've seen (posted in these forums) that's pushing the income inequality narrative, which is nonsense.
    Why would you include mandatory payments in a calculation of altruism? People pay taxes because they legally have to, not out of the goodness of their hearts. Plus in the United States the average tax evader is also in the highest tax bracket and evades by overreporting charitable donation. That suggests there is a trend (though not linear of course, a more complex function) to evade as income increases, and also to lie about charity as income increases. Neither of those correlations really suggests increased compassion to me.

    That all said, I think it's probably more complicated than just the poor being more generous. I think amongst the poor there are also probably variables like religious adherence that play in with a more intricate relationship. I think @Hard probably hit the nail on the head with:

    What is surprising to most, is the evidence that folks who are less well off are more compassionate, caring, and giving. The reasoning is usually that since they have less, the truly get what it is like to not have it, and don't want others in similar situation to suffer. They have also established that giving to others uplifts mood and makes one feel better in a rather long lasting way for most individuals. So there would be drive for them to do it as well. It makes them feel better about a shitty situation, and it helps someone else. So it simply makes the most sense on an emotional level. Although it is not exactly practical to do.
    If you've never been down and out, it's hard to understand how being down and out feels like. Some people who are particularly privileged and insulated may even believe that they did something to "earn" their privilege.

    Like with most problems, I think the answer is greater contact and education. But a different sort of education... not prep school education. Education as in mingling with real people in real places. Education as in learning the life conditions of people in other places. Education as in meeting face-to-face and speaking with people who face poverty. But I don't know how to make that a reality. How do you overcome stigma to overcome stigma?

  6. #16
    deplorable basketcase Tellenbach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    MBTI
    ISTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5
    Posts
    3,953

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by skylights
    Why would you include mandatory payments in a calculation of altruism?
    Because mandatory payments are an expense and having expenses will affect any decisions to spend; simply, taxes (and having other expenses) affect altruism.

    That all said, I think it's probably more complicated than just the poor being more generous.
    That's what the NYT article is missing. It's a one-sided perspective because it's deliberately pitching an anti-rich guy narrative. It doesn't examine why the rich don't pay more because the author wants to villainize the successful. Instead, he goes for the "the poor are so much better than the rich" nonsense. Expect to see more rich vs poor and income inequality crap from the NYT as the 2014 election nears. This is simply a tactic to turn out the base.
    Senator Rand Paul is alive because of modern medicine and because his attacker punches like a girl.

  7. #17
    Sugar Hiccup OrangeAppled's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    4w5 sp/sx
    Socionics
    IEI Ni
    Posts
    7,661

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Southern Kross View Post
    Besides, the disposable income (which by definition is where charity comes from) of the top percentiles in income are in no way comparable to that of the bottom percentiles.
    Exactly. The rich give out of their excess. It doesn't affect their own quality of life. It's not self-sacrificing.
    The poor are giving out of their own "need".
    Often a star was waiting for you to notice it. A wave rolled toward you out of the distant past, or as you walked under an open window, a violin yielded itself to your hearing. All this was mission. But could you accomplish it? (Rilke)

    INFP | 4w5 sp/sx | RLUEI - Primary Inquisitive | Tritype is tripe

  8. #18
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    2,152

    Default

    hood rich?

  9. #19
    The Typing Tabby grey_beard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Posts
    1,504

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by OrangeAppled View Post
    Exactly. The rich give out of their excess. It doesn't affect their own quality of life. It's not self-sacrificing.
    The poor are giving out of their own "need".
    @OrangeAppled --

    The poor know what it's like...and I guess the ones whose lifestyle dysfunction does not entrap them in poverty, know the difference between "want" and "need" and NEED.



    I think it was Walter E. Willaims who pointed out

    "Avoiding long-term poverty is not rocket science. First, graduate from high school. Second, get married before you have children, and stay married. Third, work at any kind of job, even one that starts out paying the minimum wage. And, finally, avoid engaging in criminal behavior. If you graduate from high school today with a B or C average, in most places in our country there's a low-cost or financially assisted post-high-school education program available to increase your skills. "

    My take on this is:

    Some of the poor have self-defeating habits; and of those, some are victims who were battered into being a mess on the inside, through the fault of others; others are
    paying in spades for poor choices of their own, where the consequences they were saddled with, are more than they bargained for; and some are the victims of large-scale
    economic trends (decline of labor unions, mechanization, offshoring).

    But in any case, it still doesn't make it any easier to climb out.


    @Coriolis --

    I think there is a mixed bag, of those who don't give, vs. those who give in secret, since you quoted from "the widow's mite"; and that is Matthew 6: 2-4 --

    2"So when you give to the poor, do not sound a trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, so that they may be honored by men. Truly I say to you, they have their reward in full. 3"But when you give to the poor, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, 4so that your giving will be in secret; and your Father who sees what is done in secret will reward you.


    For instance, reporters discovered that Vice President Joe Biden donated an average of $369 a year to charity. In 1997, reporters unearthed that then-Vice President Al Gore only donated $353 to charity the previous year.

    Source: http://www.humanevents.com/2010/12/2...eral-scrooges/
    "Love never needs time. But friendship always needs time. More and more and more time, up to long past midnight." -- The Crime of Captain Gahagan

    Please comment on my johari / nohari pages.

  10. #20
    Analytical Dreamer Coriolis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w6 sp/sx
    Posts
    17,518

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Southern Kross View Post
    So taxes = charity now? Oh, please.
    Of course they are not charity, but they can be used for many of the same purposes. In places with higher taxes, there is often a broader range of services available to more people (i.e. children, elderly, disabled, poor), services otherwise paid for through charity. The 19th and early 20th century mentality was to leave these services to charitable organizations supported through voluntary donations. We see how well that worked. Yes, there were wealthy donors who set up free clinics, children's homes, soup kitchens, etc. but coverage was very uneven and did not come close to meeting needs in most places.

    Funding such services through taxes provides a higher and more consistent level of funding; spreads the funding burden across a larger pool of people; and makes a given service available more consistently across the population. So, in this respect if raising taxes on the wealthy causes them to donate less to charity, it may still be the better bargain. Sooner or later, we all pay anyway; better sooner, and less.
    I've been called a criminal, a terrorist, and a threat to the known universe. But everything you were told is a lie. The truth is, they've taken our freedom, our home, and our future. The time has come for all humanity to take a stand...

Similar Threads

  1. The Logic of Stupid Poor People
    By 011235813 in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 11-04-2013, 12:18 AM
  2. the poor me i have a cold thread/virus/bacterial infection
    By prplchknz in forum The Fluff Zone
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 09-13-2012, 04:03 PM
  3. "Registering the Poor to Vote is Un-American"
    By Southern Kross in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 100
    Last Post: 09-06-2011, 08:07 PM
  4. The Poor Man's Diet
    By Misty_Mountain_Rose in forum Health and Fitness
    Replies: 43
    Last Post: 04-08-2009, 01:57 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO