Yours and every other government in the world. Except maybe Sweden or something.Kmarion wrote:
I too would like to eliminate the need for private charity. My government (The US) has done nothing but discourage that idea.. Washington sucks.
I do. Giving to charity tells a lot about a person. Especially with the large disparity between the two.GorillaTicTacs wrote:
Who cares about a few extra dollars to charity...
Agree. But what's really bad imo is that Biden and every Biden gets all that money from lobbyists in the first place.Kmarion wrote:
The hypocrisy annoys me. Just like the hypocrisy of George Bush calling himself a compassionate conservative. Biden giving $369 a year when he is getting millions from lobbyist? I mean c'mon.. there's bad, and there is really bad.
You must be a business owner, not. 2 percent is NOT peanuts, that is potentially millions of dollars.SealXo wrote:
I don't believe in that, I think it should be optional.oug wrote:
I don't want rich politicians giving money to charity. I want the government to make sure there is no need for that.
My vision is seeing every fortune 500 company donating 2% of its gross profit to a charity. Imagine, its pocket change to them, but BIG money to charities. I don't think it should be a law to do it. I think they just should to give them a good image. Incentivise it so they choose to.
Seems a little unfair to compare McCain alone to Obama and his wife. How much does Cindy make? My bet is a lot.Kmarion wrote:
\By comparison, Sen. John McCain, the Republican Presidential nominee, in 2007 reported $405,409 in total income and contributed $105,467, or 26 percent of his total income, to charity.Sen. Obama, and his wife, Michelle, donated $240,000 in 2007, or about 5.7 percent of the couple’s $4.2-million in reported income.
You have a warped view of socialism. . . but then again, it's all different names for the same things.Stingray24 wrote:
Giving of one's own choosing to those less fortunate is not socialism. The government jacking up taxes and telling you it's patriotic to pay more is socialist.Mek-Stizzle wrote:
Funny cos it's supposed to be the Liberals who give to the needy and the Conservatives to not. But it's the other way round. Palin is being more of the Socialist.
QFT.oug wrote:
I don't want rich politicians giving money to charity. I want the government to make sure there is no need for that.
Again, I'd like to see where the money goes to. 26 % of his income? LOL Did you get the whole picture? Forgot how many houses the guy has? He doesn't know himself how many for sure so how can you be sure he reported his total income, and not only his taxable income?Kmarion wrote:
By comparison, Sen. John McCain, the Republican Presidential nominee, in 2007 reported $405,409 in total income and contributed $105,467, or 26 percent of his total income, to charity.Sen. Obama, and his wife, Michelle, donated $240,000 in 2007, or about 5.7 percent of the couple’s $4.2-million in reported income.
That's what accountants are for.Pierre wrote:
Again, I'd like to see where the money goes to. 26 % of his income? LOL Did you get the whole picture? Forgot how many houses the guy has? He doesn't know himself how many for sure so how can you be sure he reported his total income, and not only his taxable income?Kmarion wrote:
By comparison, Sen. John McCain, the Republican Presidential nominee, in 2007 reported $405,409 in total income and contributed $105,467, or 26 percent of his total income, to charity.Sen. Obama, and his wife, Michelle, donated $240,000 in 2007, or about 5.7 percent of the couple’s $4.2-million in reported income.
Exactly what I mean. When you want to asses someone's ability of being a good president or vice president and look at his donations to charity, at least you should take into account his whole patrimonium and not only his taxable income.FEOS wrote:
That's what accountants are for.Pierre wrote:
Again, I'd like to see where the money goes to. 26 % of his income? LOL Did you get the whole picture? Forgot how many houses the guy has? He doesn't know himself how many for sure so how can you be sure he reported his total income, and not only his taxable income?Kmarion wrote:
By comparison, Sen. John McCain, the Republican Presidential nominee, in 2007 reported $405,409 in total income and contributed $105,467, or 26 percent of his total income, to charity.
Income doesn't include real assets unless he's receiving an income from those homes. And then if he is, it's a business/investment situation, not X number of personal homes.
Income from properties is taxable.Pierre wrote:
Exactly what I mean. When you want to asses someone's ability of being a good president or vice president and look at his donations to charity, at least you should take into account his whole patrimonium and not only his taxable income.FEOS wrote:
That's what accountants are for.Pierre wrote:
Again, I'd like to see where the money goes to. 26 % of his income? LOL Did you get the whole picture? Forgot how many houses the guy has? He doesn't know himself how many for sure so how can you be sure he reported his total income, and not only his taxable income?
Income doesn't include real assets unless he's receiving an income from those homes. And then if he is, it's a business/investment situation, not X number of personal homes.
You're avoiding the question, so I'll rephrase.FEOS wrote:
Income from properties is taxable.
Knowing that McCain owns several houses (8+ ?), does $405,409 represents his total patrimonium? If you want to take a look at his donations to charity, then take a look at what he owns in total (all his assets, including those incorporated) and not only at his taxable income over a year.Kmarion wrote:
By comparison, Sen. John McCain, the Republican Presidential nominee, in 2007 reported $405,409 in total income and contributed $105,467, or 26 percent of his total income, to charity.
Avoiding the question? Perhaps rephrasing the question will make it understandable.Pierre wrote:
You're avoiding the question, so I'll rephrase.FEOS wrote:
Income from properties is taxable.
Why, if it's the same measuring stick used to compare to Obama?Pierre wrote:
Knowing that McCain owns several houses (8+ ?), does $405,409 represents his total patrimonium? If you want to take a look at his donations to charity, then take a look at what he owns in total (all his assets, including those incorporated) and not only at his taxable income over a year.Kmarion wrote:
By comparison, Sen. John McCain, the Republican Presidential nominee, in 2007 reported $405,409 in total income and contributed $105,467, or 26 percent of his total income, to charity.
Yes, how dare those bastards give their money away to worthy causes. Bastards...Braddock wrote:
QFT.oug wrote:
I don't want rich politicians giving money to charity. I want the government to make sure there is no need for that.
Last edited by nukchebi0 (2008-10-05 20:47:14)
Last edited by mikkel (2008-10-05 21:00:09)
When your candidates are so bad in this regard, its what you have to resort to.mikkel wrote:
There are a million legitimate reasons for both donating and refraining from donating to charity, and no one can tell by looking at tax returns if everything was reported. Whatever happened to sticking to the significant and tangible aspects of campaigns? We're electing the heads of future administrations, not the leaders of the past.
If charity were socialism, the state would be the one distributing your cash between the Humane Society and the Salvation Army - not you.Mek-Stizzle wrote:
Palin is being more of the Socialist.
