ALL HAIL PRESIDENT TRUMP
" That's not what he said. He said that you shouldn't get a tax break for giving money to churches. That is not to say that churches should be taxed (or for that matter that they shouldn't be). |
|
" That is what he said. The two are the same thing. When you collect on money going into a church’s coffers, you erode the efficacy of the role the first amendment plays in keeping churches out of politics. Devolving Wilds
Land “T, Sacrifice Devolving Wilds: Search your library for a basic land card and reveal it. Then shuffle your library.” |
|
" Reread the statement or read up on what tax deductions are. You did not understand it correctly. " I agree, to an extent. Why should I subsidize someone's church donations. I would say that the percentage that goes to non religious outreach/charity work should be deductible though. Last edited by DurianMcgregor on Jan 18, 2018, 9:29:53 PM
|
|
|
Spoiler
look up what a subsidy is, while you’re at it.
Edit: Eliminating tax deductions on donations is functionally the same as taxing churches. Example A: I’ve got $10 to give to you, I give it to you, you have $10. Example B: I’ve got $10 to give to you, by doing so I am going to have to pay $2 more in taxes, I give you $8, because I only have $10 to give, not $12. The more you know. Devolving Wilds Land “T, Sacrifice Devolving Wilds: Search your library for a basic land card and reveal it. Then shuffle your library.” Last edited by CanHasPants on Jan 19, 2018, 12:26:48 AM
|
|
" The graph you linked was to charitable tax deductions, which includes tithing. So yes, you did connect religion to this discussion. If tithing is not realistically charity, then your entire premise about republicans giving more to charity is thrown in the trash. If you want to "prove" republicans donate more to charity, then you need a graph that separates tithing from charity. And what about people who use the standard deduction? Why exclude them? What if democrats just happen to mostly use standard deduction? Who knows? Last edited by Kamchatka on Jan 19, 2018, 9:04:37 AM
| |
|
Tithing is probably at least partially charitable. Most churches do spend money on charitable causes, so it's not unreasonable to count it to some extent. I think it would be incorrect also to count it as 0% charitable.
|
|
" Well if someone wants to do HONEST statistical analysis to show charity based on party, then they should do the work and come up with a good % of tithing to use. Last edited by Kamchatka on Jan 19, 2018, 10:22:57 AM
| |
" Honestly that's the least of the problems with the article. It only counted itemized deductions, so there was no information about poor or moderate income people who probably make up the majority of both parties. At a fixed percentage of income donated those people are also more charitable because that amount of income has a larger economic impact on them. It is a very nontrivial task to do correctly and I'm not really sure if there is even an objectively correct way of doing it. |
|
|
Sounds like the entire premise of the article and graph should be thrown in the trash.
| |
" Why do you insist on associating tithing only with republicans?! Do you think democrats don't go to church? You are making some false connections that assume that a) tithing was part of the data and b) that only Repulicans tithe. Here are some different links and stats:
Spoiler
 Key take away from this graph: conservatives donate 30% MORE. As individual donors, conservatives are hearty givers—as made clear in this graph, the one previous, and many other data sets. When it comes to running foundations, though, liberals tend to control the reins. Matched analyses of the major American foundations reported in the book The New Leviathan found 82 foundations whose staff took a clear conservative orientation in their giving, and 122 foundations whose staff operated with a clear liberal orientation. The conservative-controlled foundations had assets of $10 billion in 2010, from which they gave away $832 million annually. That same year, the liberal-controlled foundations had assets of $105 billion (more than ten times their conservative counterparts), and gave away $8.8 billion annually (11 times as much as conservative counterparts). Many foundations end up espousing the priorities and orientations of their staff rather than the principles of the donor behind the foundation. As this has become more widely understood, some new foundations have made efforts to protect “donor intent” and be sure that funds are expended on causes compatible with the founder’s views. There has also been a sharp jump of interest in “sunset” foundations—which spend all their money relatively close to the donor’s lifetime, rather than existing in perpetuity, where capture by staff becomes almost inevitable. See the text accompanying Graph 18 for more details on sunsetting. |
