Not overhere, but some time ago the results of a similar (private) investigation were published in a book, and it turned out that up to 90 % of the donations were used to cover overhead expenses. The organisations are still battling the author of the book in court.FEOS wrote:
Don't know what it's like in other countries, but the overhead expenses for charities are public information here. That gives you a good idea of how much is actually spent on what you think it's being spent on, rather than the executives' salaries and office suites.
Who says that charitable donations are typically measured against income not net worth? Why? At the contrary, it means a lot knowing the whole picture instead focussing on the taxable income.FEOS wrote:
Charitable donations are typically measured against income not net worth, which is what I believe you are getting at. Those houses only matter if he is getting an income off of them. If he is receiving an income from those houses, then it is reported as income and would be reflected in the $405,409 reported above.
If I own 50.000.000 in the bank, my income is 50.000, and I give the whole income to charity, then I must be God according to these standards.
@ OP: if i give 50 % of my taxable income to charity, does it qualify me as a better president?
Not necessarily, but the point was that Biden is a hypocrite when it comes to giving. Democrats believe in giving to the needy as long as it does not affect them.Pierre wrote:
@ OP: if i give 50 % of my taxable income to charity, does it qualify me as a better president?
Edit: Spelling errors.
Last edited by LividBovine (2008-10-06 00:53:30)
"The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation" - Barack Obama (a freshman senator from Illinios)
This discussion is as useless as the global warming debate ... there is no global warming seeing as Al Gores home uses more electric power than the Bush farm ... reading the posts in this thread it sounds much the same ...
Wait behind the line ..............................................................
Because those assets that contribute to net worth are not necessarily liquid, when income is.Pierre wrote:
Who says that charitable donations are typically measured against income not net worth? Why? At the contrary, it means a lot knowing the whole picture instead focussing on the taxable income.FEOS wrote:
Charitable donations are typically measured against income not net worth, which is what I believe you are getting at. Those houses only matter if he is getting an income off of them. If he is receiving an income from those houses, then it is reported as income and would be reflected in the $405,409 reported above.
That's not true at all. If your total income for the year is 50k and you give 100% of it away, then you are certainly doing well by that measure. The problem with your analogy is you didn't relate it to what you received as income...you related it to how much money you have in your bank account. The two are not necessarily the same.Pierre wrote:
If I own 50.000.000 in the bank, my income is 50.000, and I give the whole income to charity, then I must be God according to these standards.
And percentage of annual income is actually a very good measure (as well as being the only one readily available from tax papers). It is reflective of the Biblical parable of the giving of alms by a rich man and a poor woman. They gave the same amount, but the amount given was far more dear (a higher percentage of her available liquid assets) to the poor woman than the amount given by the rich man.
Been a while, but the gist of the story is there.
No, it doesn't. It does, however, show whether you're willing to put your own money where your mouth is with regard to helping those less fortunate--the intention of charity. When you make roughly 10x more than another person, tout the need to give more to those with less (using taxpayers' money), then you give roughly one-fifth (as a percentage) as much as your opponent who you say doesn't want to help those less fortunate...then you're not really "walking the walk" now are you?Pierre wrote:
@ OP: if i give 50 % of my taxable income to charity, does it qualify me as a better president?
The same trend appears to exist on the VP side of the ticket, as well.
That's the point of the OP.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
That really has no connection whatsoever to this discussion, Varegg. No one is denying that there is a need for charity. Nor did anyone deny that global warming existed based on Al Gore's hypocritical carbon footprint.Varegg wrote:
This discussion is as useless as the global warming debate ... there is no global warming seeing as Al Gores home uses more electric power than the Bush farm ... reading the posts in this thread it sounds much the same ...
However, there is a connection to the "do as I say, not as I do" mindset of many preachy folk.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
Liquidity of a person's assets doesn't matter in that regard, you're not giving away your house, you've only have to look at the global picture of a man's wealth, not only his income in that year.FEOS wrote:
Because those assets that contribute to net worth are not necessarily liquid, when income is.Pierre wrote:
Who says that charitable donations are typically measured against income not net worth? Why? At the contrary, it means a lot knowing the whole picture instead focussing on the taxable income.FEOS wrote:
Charitable donations are typically measured against income not net worth, which is what I believe you are getting at. Those houses only matter if he is getting an income off of them. If he is receiving an income from those houses, then it is reported as income and would be reflected in the $405,409 reported above.
Your statement is one more reason to agree with what I'm saying. Example: person A has 50.000.000 in the bank, 50.000 as taxable income, and gives 50.000 to charity, while person B has 50.000 as taxable income and gives 25.000 to charity: according to your standards A > B because it looks like he's giving more precentage of his income, while in reality he's not giving that much in view of his wealth.FEOS wrote:
That's not true at all. If your total income for the year is 50k and you give 100% of it away, then you are certainly doing well by that measure. The problem with your analogy is you didn't relate it to what you received as income...you related it to how much money you have in your bank account. The two are not necessarily the same.Pierre wrote:
If I own 50.000.000 in the bank, my income is 50.000, and I give the whole income to charity, then I must be God according to these standards.
I agree that annual income is a very good measure, but it is inaccurate in general, and mostly in the case of the OP when you want to use it in a political context.
Well, I guess in Europe we will never fully grasp the real meaning and purpose of charity in the US as compared to Europe. We don't measure our politicians by the amount of money they give to charity, that's not even disclosed overhere. And BTW, it wouldn't matter, we know they are all hypocrite .FEOS wrote:
No, it doesn't. It does, however, show whether you're willing to put your own money where your mouth is with regard to helping those less fortunate--the intention of charity. When you make roughly 10x more than another person, tout the need to give more to those with less (using taxpayers' money), then you give roughly one-fifth (as a percentage) as much as your opponent who you say doesn't want to help those less fortunate...then you're not really "walking the walk" now are you?Pierre wrote:
@ OP: if i give 50 % of my taxable income to charity, does it qualify me as a better president?
The same trend appears to exist on the VP side of the ticket, as well.
That's the point of the OP.
Last edited by Pierre (2008-10-06 03:12:43)
Exactly. You can't give away your house, so if your "global picture" of your wealth is primarily non-liquid assets, then those don't matter when it comes to donating to charity. Only liquid assets (ie, taxable income) counts.Pierre wrote:
Liquidity of a person's assets doesn't matter in that regard, you're not giving away your house, you've only have to look at the global picture of a man's wealth, not only his income in that year.
Again, what one has in the bank is not necessarily reflective of one's taxable income. I didn't say only taxable income. I focused on liquid assets...which the 50k in person A's bank account would count as (poor grammar, I know). You're completely overlooking the fact that, based solely on percentage of taxable income for the year, Obama made ten times as much as McCain and gave one-fifth as much (measured as a percentage of yearly taxable income). Each person's overall net worth is really irrelevant.Pierre wrote:
Your statement is one more reason to agree with what I'm saying. Example: person A has 50.000.000 in the bank, 50.000 as taxable income, and gives 50.000 to charity, while person B has 50.000 as taxable income and gives 25.000 to charity: according to your standards A > B because it looks like he's giving more precentage of his income, while in reality he's not giving that much in view of his wealth.
I agree that annual income is a very good measure, but it is inaccurate in general, and mostly in the case of the OP when you want to use it in a political context.
We don't use it as a measure of our politicians, either. It does, however, reflect on their character and priorities. It's just one of many facets, but hardly a major one.Pierre wrote:
Well, I guess in Europe we will never fully grasp the real meaning and purpose of charity in the US as compared to Europe. We don't measure our politicians by the amount of money they give to charity, that's not even disclosed overhere. And BTW, it wouldn't matter, we know they are all hypocrite .
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
I think points like that are more towards spokesmen for the prevention of global warming not making a very good name for its methods than it is to prove that it doesn't exist.Varegg wrote:
This discussion is as useless as the global warming debate ... there is no global warming seeing as Al Gores home uses more electric power than the Bush farm ... reading the posts in this thread it sounds much the same ...
This made me laugh a bit.Kmarion wrote:
“Catholic social doctrine as I was taught it is, you take care of people who need the help the most.”
Catholic priests suggest people should try to give 10% of their income to charity. Democrats philosophy usually is private charitiable giving is biased...the government is better at managing where the money should go.
I guess he's a democrat.
giving to charity equals tax write-off.
up to a certain amountMason4Assassin444 wrote:
giving to charity equals tax write-off.
What a fucking stupid thread.
No it doesn't - not in every case. It only does if you expect a receipt after you give. I, this liberal does not expect any of the following: a receipt, a tax write-off, a thank you, recognition, praise, or the favor returned one day.Mason4Assassin444 wrote:
giving to charity equals tax write-off.
Last edited by topal63 (2008-10-06 12:20:50)
Why is it stupid?topal63 wrote:
What a fucking stupid thread.
It's pathetic pandering bullshit.Pug wrote:
Why is it stupid?topal63 wrote:
What a fucking stupid thread.
This is par for the course, the conservatives have always been more giving and it is the liberals that are comfortable with more TAKING.Kmarion wrote:
http://i34.tinypic.com/333crhc.jpg
Yesterday, the Palins released their income tax returns for the last two years, as expected for the general election. While the returns showed the Palins to be squarely in the middle class, with income between $127,000 and $166,000 combined, they also revealed a charity gap between the two VP candidates:Recall what Barack Obama said in his appearance at the Saddleback Forum in August:Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin made considerably less money than rival Sen. Joe Biden, but the Palin family gave more to charity in the last two years than Biden has in the last eight combined, according to Palin’s tax records released Friday afternoon. …
In 2006, the Palins paid $11,944 in taxes on $127,869 in income. In 2007, they paid $24,738 on $166,080.
But in 2006, they donated $4,880 to charity, and in 2007, they donated $3,325.
By contrast, Biden (D-Del.), Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama’s running mate, has donated a total of $3,690 since 1998 despite his higher Senate salary, according to an analysis posted by National Review.And what Biden claimed as the moral imperative from soaking people with higher taxes:“Americans’ greatest moral failure in my lifetime,” he said, “has been that we still don’t abide by that basic precept in Matthew that whatever you do for the least of my brothers, you do for me.”http://i36.tinypic.com/2vio13k.jpg“Catholic social doctrine as I was taught it is, you take care of people who need the help the most.”
Once again, we see that liberals talk about charity, and conservatives take action. The Palins have been quite generous with their cash, while Biden has given far less on an annual basis with a much larger income stream. Since the two Democrats keep claiming the charitable impulse for spending other people’s money, it’s revealing to once again compare Biden’s own personal giving to his political rhetoric, and to his opponent in November.
Last edited by lowing (2008-10-06 12:25:29)
Some people see charitable giving a matter of character. Why is that pandering?topal63 wrote:
It's pathetic pandering bullshit.Pug wrote:
Why is it stupid?topal63 wrote:
What a fucking stupid thread.
Here's an example:
US gives more aid (gross) overseas than other nations. However, US has been criticized because it's small when its a % of GDP.
Therefore, because of % of GDP, Americans are seen as greedy a-holes.
I would like to know how 3,000-7,000 (or more) donated to some charity by Palin benefits me in anyway whatsoever. This personal character bullshit doesn't interest me - explain how her donation benefits me directly in anyway if she gets elected.Pug wrote:
Some people see charitable giving a matter of character. Why is that pandering?topal63 wrote:
It's pathetic pandering bullshit.Pug wrote:
Why is it stupid?
Here's an example:
US gives more aid (gross) overseas than other nations. However, US has been criticized because it's small when its a % of GDP.
Therefore, because of % of GDP, Americans are seen as greedy a-holes.
As far as I am concerned - I don't know a person's true charitable nature unless I know the person. Do you think you are more charitable than I? Do you think anyone on this board is more charitable than I? I don't declare any charitable donations on my tax returns... so based upon that - one single fact - what do you think you know about me?
Last edited by topal63 (2008-10-06 13:06:50)
I don't think I need to explain this to you.topal63 wrote:
I would like to know how 3,000-7,000 (or more) donated to some charity by Palin benefits me in anyway whatsoever. This personal character bullshit doesn't interest me - explain how her donation benefits me directly in anyway if she gets elected.
As far as I am concerned - I don't know a person's true charitable nature unless I know the person. Do you think you are more charitable than I? Do you think anyone on this board is more charitable than I? I don't declare any charitable donations on my tax returns... so based upon that - one single fact - what do you think you know about me?
Palin seems really dumb on camera...but she's not. Biden is an a-hole...but he's not. McCain looks like he's really old and going to die any instant...but he's not. Obama looks inexperienced...but he's not. Image/Character isn't an issue in an election? Since when?
And even though you asked a hypothetical...based on the single fact you provided: you either didn't have enough income to deduct your donations, or you didn't keep track of them. I know that about you.
^^^ And you are wrong.
1.) I have the income.
2.) I simply don't expect to be reimbursed for any donations; or money given away.
3.) It also doesn't tell you anything about my general day to day nature; fairness/ethics in business nature;... etc - either.
4.) It doesn't tell you anything about personal generosity either - in any personal setting.
5.) It doesn't tell you jack shit.
It isn't a hypothetical either. It's a matter of: you don't actually know, because that one fact reveals nothing about me. Feel free to argue with yourself as you're doing. I've said, more or less, why I think it doesn't mean anything at all on a personal level. Let alone; disregarding; the disgusting pandering political "character"-issue bullshit level.
1.) I have the income.
2.) I simply don't expect to be reimbursed for any donations; or money given away.
3.) It also doesn't tell you anything about my general day to day nature; fairness/ethics in business nature;... etc - either.
4.) It doesn't tell you anything about personal generosity either - in any personal setting.
5.) It doesn't tell you jack shit.
It isn't a hypothetical either. It's a matter of: you don't actually know, because that one fact reveals nothing about me. Feel free to argue with yourself as you're doing. I've said, more or less, why I think it doesn't mean anything at all on a personal level. Let alone; disregarding; the disgusting pandering political "character"-issue bullshit level.
Last edited by topal63 (2008-10-06 16:05:50)
Sorry, CPA joketopal63 wrote:
^^^ And you are wrong.
1.) I have the income.
2.) I simply don't expect to reimbursed for any donations; or money given away.
3.) It also doesn't tell you anything about my general day to day nature; fairness ethics in business nature; etc; either.
4.) It doesn't tell you anything about personal generosity either in any personal setting.
5.) It doesn't tell you jack shit.
So you are arguing Biden wanted to pay more tax instead of keeping all the money for hisself?
I think we are doing a good job of ignoring each other:topal63 wrote:
No I am stating the obvious. And you're ignoring it.
You: giving to charity doesn't mean someone doesn't care about others
Me: charity = generous nature
You: election should be about issues
Me: election is about issues and character
AKA, Clinton was a great president, but in the future he might only be remembered for a dress stain.
I have no idea what this presumption (you've ascribed to me) even means.Pug wrote:
You: giving to charity does not mean someone does not care about others
_____
No it doesn't - not in every case. It only does if you expect a receipt after you give. I, this liberal does not expect any of the following: a receipt, a tax write-off, a thank you, recognition, praise, or the favor returned one day.Mason4Assassin444 wrote:
giving to charity equals tax write-off.
_____
Yes (Pug), you are completely ignoring everything I've stated... (Feel free to... I don't really care).
You don't know how charitable I actually am, nor do you actually know how charitable Palin or Biden is based upon that singular fact.
(wtf!!) What is so hard to understand about "you don't actually know" something comprehensively by a singular fact?
Last edited by topal63 (2008-10-06 14:16:14)
You must not under stand how a charity organizations run. Less than half the money you donate actually goes toward the people. A lot of those homeless people can actually work. I mean there are paying jobs suited for the mentally retarded. So you are voting for a nearly dead guy that is already becoming a mess up and should have retired by now and a woman that cant have an answer to most of the issues and going around the point.Pug wrote:
I think we are doing a good job of ignoring each other:topal63 wrote:
No I am stating the obvious. And you're ignoring it.
You: giving to charity doesn't mean someone doesn't care about others
Me: charity = generous nature
You: election should be about issues
Me: election is about issues and character
AKA, Clinton was a great president, but in the future he might only be remembered for a dress stain.
Last edited by The#1Spot (2008-10-06 13:57:11)
Well, you proved this thread is worthy enough, imho.
Well, two can play at that game. There's no proof that Biden made any contributions either, and there's no proof Biden thinks of charitable giving like you do...
...but I understand what you're saying.
YOU might think that this is a non-issue, but I would think voters do consider character/image when they make a vote.
THAT is the point I was trying to make. NOT that Palin is better.
Well, two can play at that game. There's no proof that Biden made any contributions either, and there's no proof Biden thinks of charitable giving like you do...
...but I understand what you're saying.
YOU might think that this is a non-issue, but I would think voters do consider character/image when they make a vote.
THAT is the point I was trying to make. NOT that Palin is better.