Political Roundtable Part XVI

[dckingsfan]

I do. Lumping tax dodge foundations in with House of Ruth, Manna Inc., So Others Might Eat, etc. hurts charities while likely just chasing rich people on to the next tax dodge. The charitable deduction allows me to give more, and I act on that incentive. I think the solution lies more in better definition and regulation of charities, so they are actually channeling the bulk of contributions (say, 85% or more) to recipients from year to year, rather than sheltering wealth, self-granting lavish compensation, or otherwise failing.

Okay - you make a good point. But, once you have a carveout it is near to impossible to regulate those charities. If we want a fair tax code - we are going to have to limit some of those deductions, right?

Healthcare carveout in the 30s led to the mess we are in. Real Estate careveout has led to a huge mess - and folks like Trump that leveraged it. Charitable deduction - same.

Every good tax deed seems to have a bigger blowback in terms of tax fairness. Worse, our tax code no longer incents capital to chase growth - and that imperils the entire infrastructure.

I know - I am lecturing. But you know the next election is going to be about tax fairness without actually taking on tax fairness.

Not discounting the tax issue, but there are numerous smaller scale charities that actually turn the vast majority (85%+, not 7%) of contributions into goods/services. In the age of Trump, public subsidies to these charities are already being cut (I've seen it with the House of Ruth) and removal of the tax deduction would almost certainly result in further reduction of income. Just voicing my concern regarding charities that I know do good and cost effective work.

And I guess that is the trade off - fair tax policy for slightly increased charitable organizations that do good work (and agreed, many are very efficient).

BTW, the decrease in public subsidies started well before Trump - it started back in the Clinton era and has been accelerating as entitlements have squeezed other spending. I see those subsidies going to zero over time.

I question the long term decrease in charitable deduction over time. I question if government coffers should be subsidizing the those deductions. And I question the morality of that as well - should the government be backing a billionaire's choice of where that money should go...

[stilldropin20]

Yeah the way to show those billionaires is to eliminate the estate tax and make them even richer!

The sooner that people drop putting their faith in conmen and snake oil salesmen like Trump the better it will be. Trump is not a savior for anyone and embodies everything that people like SD20 claim to be against.

If Trump voters truly give a damn about improving their lives they would vote for Progressive candidates, but that comes with equal rights for women, minorities and lgbtq. It also requires Trump voters to stop getting all worked up about Muslims, immigrants and athletes kneeling.

this aint about faith. its not about trump. trump "gets" some things though.

there are many things to fix. but, here's the thing. you have to start somewhere. you cant "get everything back" in 1 swoop. there will be too much resistance. you cant fix everything all at once. No politicians in any given era will be able to take on all of these things that need to be "fixed.". The best metaphor i can think of is trump is fixing the actual needle moving issues like dealing with the coach and talent on the team and you guys are worried about the name of the mascot.

1. we need to amend immigration to make sure americans already here are gainfully employed.
2. amend trade deals to bring jobs back for everyone.
3. amend taxes to recapture wealth from the wealthy elites and redistribute to poor and working class.
4. keep the us citizens safe enemies foreign and abroad.
5. create policies that create opportunities for financial growth for everyone and as fair as possible. basically ensuring the credit markets flush with cash for everyone.

you either believe we have a country or you dont. (globalists vs nationalists).
globalists dont care about things like the economy. jobs. etc. if it gets bad enough, they will move. thats what they tell themselves and others. the crazy thing is though that virtually none of them are going to actually move. I understand wealthy globalists. They really can and will move. thats like .5% of the US. the remaining 99.5% of the population? why have so many of them become "globalists" that dont care about better trade deals? bringing jobs back? lower unemployment rates? taking on enemies of the state like North Korea?

nationalists like me, understand the economy matters. i, for example, understand that even though i dont agree with Pointgod, at all. and i think his, wizardspride, and monstestewerts agenda on here is completely naive and foolish. as they get too caught up in rhetoric and non needle movers vs. actual needle moving policy. I already grew out of that naive way of thinking. came back to it a few times. grew out if it agian and came to understand that these major issues come down to math more than emotion. make the math work first. then the emotion. I have come to fully understand that. They clearly dont. And I understand that i need both of those guys to work. and to pay taxes on their income. i need them to be healthy both physically and mentally. I care about them because their mental, physical, and financial health directly affects me. I'm not stupid enough to think it somehow doesn't affect me. it does. greatly. So i care about them. greatly. even though i dont know them and frankly cant stand their naivety. If they are broke, unhealthy, and unstable mentally it will simply cost me more of my money(taxes) out of my pocket to subsidize them, their sicknesses, and to protect society from them. I understand that. So i want them to be happy, healthy, and financially secure. and that is how a nationalists thinks. nationalists simply care more about americans however self serving the motivation.

and I bet my ass. my bottom dollar that they dont give 2 craps about me. and i'm not even a "deplorable." I'm as socially liberal as they come! But they clearly dont care at all about half of this country. Cuz they just dont get it that we are all in this together. we are all going to continue succeed together or go down in flames together. They would rather talk about the evils of not allowing federal funds to pay for birth control or abortion or who uses which bathroom. all of which I agree with them!!!!! but its all non needle moving bull meant to distract you from the real issues that i continue outline that are only solved using things like math. They get so wrapped up in donald trumps rhetoric vs his math. as if the words he uses matter at all in any of the math problems. trump either creates better trade deals or he doesn't. creates tax policies that keep the credit markets open or he doesn't. Gets and keeps americans back to work or he doesn't. if trump can also figure out how to redistribute wealth too? great. dont count on it. the elite ruling class owns all of the media. and thats all you guys quote on here all day and night. so methinks the media has you brainwashed. Again, elite wealthy ruling class that owns the media that has you brainwashed. You simply dont see nor understand the real issues. because CNN has you convinced that the real issues are stuff like the name of the mascot.

methinks you guys must all be either tenured college professors or have go nowhere government jobs. your disdain for the rest of the country that is dependent on the economy, credit markets, and employment rates, is too too visible. and only tenured professors and government workers have such luxuries. its a shame you dont care about the rest of us and instead just want to push your version of morality and ethics on the rest of Americans instead of needle moving economic agendas.

1. unemployment is at a 17 year low.
2. credit markets are wide open.
3. stock market at record highs.
4. he is negotiating better trade deals since he took office
5. he is attempting to reform immigration
6. he is taking on heroin epidemic.
7. and so much more

Its working. stop fighting what is working. get on board. back him up. become part of the coalition and begin to change the rhetoric as part of the coalition. This man does his research. thats how he won. he will coalesce to his constituency and fight his opposition. and you are a complete fool if you dont understand that because then you dont understand how these politicians even formulate their policies. those that win? they have done their research. they know what their voters want. become a part of his coalition. that is your pathway.

[montestewart]

Okay - you make a good point. But, once you have a carveout it is near to impossible to regulate those charities. If we want a fair tax code - we are going to have to limit some of those deductions, right?

Healthcare carveout in the 30s led to the mess we are in. Real Estate careveout has led to a huge mess - and folks like Trump that leveraged it. Charitable deduction - same.

Every good tax deed seems to have a bigger blowback in terms of tax fairness. Worse, our tax code no longer incents capital to chase growth - and that imperils the entire infrastructure.

I know - I am lecturing. But you know the next election is going to be about tax fairness without actually taking on tax fairness.

Not discounting the tax issue, but there are numerous smaller scale charities that actually turn the vast majority (85%+, not 7%) of contributions into goods/services. In the age of Trump, public subsidies to these charities are already being cut (I've seen it with the House of Ruth) and removal of the tax deduction would almost certainly result in further reduction of income. Just voicing my concern regarding charities that I know do good and cost effective work.

And I guess that is the trade off - fair tax policy for slightly increased charitable organizations that do good work (and agreed, many are very efficient).

BTW, the decrease in public subsidies started well before Trump - it started back in the Clinton era and has been accelerating as entitlements have squeezed other spending. I see those subsidies going to zero over time.

I question the long term decrease in charitable deduction over time. I question if government coffers should be subsidizing the those deductions. And I question the morality of that as well - should the government be backing a billionaire's choice of where that money should go...

Fair points. I appreciate you actually engaging in discussion on this.

[dckingsfan]

Not discounting the tax issue, but there are numerous smaller scale charities that actually turn the vast majority (85%+, not 7%) of contributions into goods/services. In the age of Trump, public subsidies to these charities are already being cut (I've seen it with the House of Ruth) and removal of the tax deduction would almost certainly result in further reduction of income. Just voicing my concern regarding charities that I know do good and cost effective work.

And I guess that is the trade off - fair tax policy for slightly increased charitable organizations that do good work (and agreed, many are very efficient).

BTW, the decrease in public subsidies started well before Trump - it started back in the Clinton era and has been accelerating as entitlements have squeezed other spending. I see those subsidies going to zero over time.

I question the long term decrease in charitable deduction over time. I question if government coffers should be subsidizing the those deductions. And I question the morality of that as well - should the government be backing a billionaire's choice of where that money should go...

Fair points. I appreciate you actually engaging in discussion on this.

Best part of the thread - actually getting to understand the others viewpoint.

[Ruzious]

I do. Lumping tax dodge foundations in with House of Ruth, Manna Inc., So Others Might Eat, etc. hurts charities while likely just chasing rich people on to the next tax dodge. The charitable deduction allows me to give more, and I act on that incentive. I think the solution lies more in better definition and regulation of charities, so they are actually channeling the bulk of contributions (say, 85% or more) to recipients from year to year, rather than sheltering wealth, self-granting lavish compensation, or otherwise failing.

Okay - you make a good point. But, once you have a carveout it is near to impossible to regulate those charities. If we want a fair tax code - we are going to have to limit some of those deductions, right?

Healthcare carveout in the 30s led to the mess we are in. Real Estate careveout has led to a huge mess - and folks like Trump that leveraged it. Charitable deduction - same.

Every good tax deed seems to have a bigger blowback in terms of tax fairness. Worse, our tax code no longer incents capital to chase growth - and that imperils the entire infrastructure.

I know - I am lecturing. But you know the next election is going to be about tax fairness without actually taking on tax fairness.

Not discounting the tax issue, but there are numerous smaller scale charities that actually turn the vast majority (85%+, not 7%) of contributions into goods/services. In the age of Trump, public subsidies to these charities are already being cut (I've seen it with the House of Ruth) and removal of the tax deduction would almost certainly result in further reduction of income. Just voicing my concern regarding charities that I know do good and cost effective work.

I used to be on the board of an organization for the blind, and they had unavoidable costs that lower the percentage. There's rent, and we had to pay a salary for a full-time executive director and bookkeeper. And one thing other board members refused to understand is the need for a reserve in case the sources of funds dry up. If you don't keep a reserve, you end up running out of money and can no longer help people that need it. And guess what - the private foundation that was keeping us afloat - started to run out of funds, and they cut us... and we ran out of money because we didn't keep a big enough reserve to keep us afloat while looking for more sources of funds. So next time folks like SD whine about charitable organizations not using all their funds for their charitable purpose, keep in mind all the smaller organizations that do good but have costs that can't be avoided and will literally go bankrupt if they're too quick in spending their funds.

[Wizardspride]

Other than the part about "turning the women down" this is in the Steele dossier (Pee pee tape).

With recent revelations (Carter Page, Sessions etc) I think we can all safely dispense with the #Fakenews meme.

Read on Twitter

[stilldropin20]

Okay - you make a good point. But, once you have a carveout it is near to impossible to regulate those charities. If we want a fair tax code - we are going to have to limit some of those deductions, right?

Healthcare carveout in the 30s led to the mess we are in. Real Estate careveout has led to a huge mess - and folks like Trump that leveraged it. Charitable deduction - same.

Every good tax deed seems to have a bigger blowback in terms of tax fairness. Worse, our tax code no longer incents capital to chase growth - and that imperils the entire infrastructure.

I know - I am lecturing. But you know the next election is going to be about tax fairness without actually taking on tax fairness.

Not discounting the tax issue, but there are numerous smaller scale charities that actually turn the vast majority (85%+, not 7%) of contributions into goods/services. In the age of Trump, public subsidies to these charities are already being cut (I've seen it with the House of Ruth) and removal of the tax deduction would almost certainly result in further reduction of income. Just voicing my concern regarding charities that I know do good and cost effective work.

I used to be on the board of an organization for the blind, and they had unavoidable costs that lower the percentage. There's rent, and we had to pay a salary for a full-time executive director and bookkeeper. And one thing other board members refused to understand is the need for a reserve in case the sources of funds dry up. If you don't keep a reserve, you end up running out of money and can no longer help people that need it. And guess what - the private foundation that was keeping us afloat - started to run out of funds, and they cut us... and we ran out of money because we didn't keep a big enough reserve to keep us afloat while looking for more sources of funds. So next time folks like SD whine about charitable organizations not using all their funds for their charitable purpose, keep in mind all the smaller organizations that do good but have costs that can't be avoided and will literally go bankrupt if they're too quick in spending their funds.

I fully understand that operating any organization or business has an overhead.

But when that overhead consist of 93% of its donations frankly what's the point of donating what's the point?

You can look the stuff up the national average of 7% gets donated to the actual "end" charity. I posted links for all the stuff 30 pages ago.

Typically, when you donate $1,000? $70 whole dollars makes it to the end charity. Why bother?

You are literally better off donating directly to an individual down the street that suffers from such an affliction. Keep $800 of that $1000 and go give $ 200 directly to the person that suffers from that Affliction or needs help.

What's worse is that you are helping the founders and that hoard of trustees hoard their wealth by donating because in most cases of a 501 they must receive 10% of their funds from the General Public as opposed to private funding. So the less than the public donates to them the less of their own money they can put in that tax shelter.





Sent from my SM-N920T using RealGM mobile app

[dckingsfan]

Not discounting the tax issue, but there are numerous smaller scale charities that actually turn the vast majority (85%+, not 7%) of contributions into goods/services. In the age of Trump, public subsidies to these charities are already being cut (I've seen it with the House of Ruth) and removal of the tax deduction would almost certainly result in further reduction of income. Just voicing my concern regarding charities that I know do good and cost effective work.

House of Ruth Maryland
https://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=10075

House of Ruth DC
https://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=8054

Pretty good scores

[stilldropin20]

Btw, no CNN for me today. How we doing on all things Russia? I saw Bernie was none too happy this morning and his statement before I left for work.

Donna brazile admitted that the dnc never turned over their server to the FBI on Tucker last night. Which is odd I mean if you truly got hacked by Russians why wouldn't you turn that over?

Sent from my SM-N920T using RealGM mobile app

[stilldropin20]

Not discounting the tax issue, but there are numerous smaller scale charities that actually turn the vast majority (85%+, not 7%) of contributions into goods/services. In the age of Trump, public subsidies to these charities are already being cut (I've seen it with the House of Ruth) and removal of the tax deduction would almost certainly result in further reduction of income. Just voicing my concern regarding charities that I know do good and cost effective work.

House of Ruth Maryland
https://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=10075

House of Ruth DC
https://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=8054

Pretty good scores

I see their returns are not audited by an independent source.

So I guess we're just taking their word for it at 85% of their proceeds find their way to the end charity?

If so sounds like one of the few great places to donate so long as you believe in their causes.

Color me a skeptic. I'd like to see that 85% broken down and defined before I get too hot and bothered.

Sent from my SM-N920T using RealGM mobile app

[montestewart]

STD, did you get the facts wrong AGAIN? At both House of Ruth pages linked by dck, it says that audited financials were prepared by an independent accountant. Just in case anyone believes you. Jeez, son, do a little homework.

[Ruzious]

Not discounting the tax issue, but there are numerous smaller scale charities that actually turn the vast majority (85%+, not 7%) of contributions into goods/services. In the age of Trump, public subsidies to these charities are already being cut (I've seen it with the House of Ruth) and removal of the tax deduction would almost certainly result in further reduction of income. Just voicing my concern regarding charities that I know do good and cost effective work.

I used to be on the board of an organization for the blind, and they had unavoidable costs that lower the percentage. There's rent, and we had to pay a salary for a full-time executive director and bookkeeper. And one thing other board members refused to understand is the need for a reserve in case the sources of funds dry up. If you don't keep a reserve, you end up running out of money and can no longer help people that need it. And guess what - the private foundation that was keeping us afloat - started to run out of funds, and they cut us... and we ran out of money because we didn't keep a big enough reserve to keep us afloat while looking for more sources of funds. So next time folks like SD whine about charitable organizations not using all their funds for their charitable purpose, keep in mind all the smaller organizations that do good but have costs that can't be avoided and will literally go bankrupt if they're too quick in spending their funds.

I fully understand that operating any organization or business has an overhead.

But when that overhead consist of 93% of its donations frankly what's the point of donating what's the point?

You can look the stuff up the national average of 7% gets donated to the actual "end" charity. I posted links for all the stuff 30 pages ago.

Typically, when you donate $1,000? $70 whole dollars makes it to the end charity. Why bother?

You are literally better off donating directly to an individual down the street that suffers from such an affliction. Keep $800 of that $1000 and go give $ 200 directly to the person that suffers from that Affliction or needs help.

What's worse is that you are helping the founders and that hoard of trustees hoard their wealth by donating because in most cases of a 501 they must receive 10% of their funds from the General Public as opposed to private funding. So the less than the public donates to them the less of their own money they can put in that tax shelter.

Problem is that you've posted so much garbage (and you know that's true) that when you may or may not have something useful to contribute, I naturally don't believe it, and naturally, I don't believe your number is anywhere near correct. Get a quote from Guidestar on that if you want me to believe you. It's pretty sad if you're really telling people not to contribute to charities.

[stilldropin20]

STD, did you get the facts wrong AGAIN? At both House of Ruth pages linked by dck, it says that audited financials were prepared by an independent accountant. Just in case anyone believes you. Jeez, son, do a little homework.

I did check the first link. Everything was checked except independent audit. It had a big red "x" everything else had a green check mark.

Sent from my SM-N920T using RealGM mobile app

[Ruzious]

STD, did you get the facts wrong AGAIN? At both House of Ruth pages linked by dck, it says that audited financials were prepared by an independent accountant. Just in case anyone believes you. Jeez, son, do a little homework.

I did check the first link. Everything was checked except independent audit. It had a big red "x" everything else had a green check mark.

Sent from my SM-N920T using RealGM mobile app

Geebus, just look at the other link. They probably just haven't updated the one you looked at.

[montestewart]

STD, did you get the facts wrong AGAIN? At both House of Ruth pages linked by dck, it says that audited financials were prepared by an independent accountant. Just in case anyone believes you. Jeez, son, do a little homework.

I did check the first link. Everything was checked except independent audit. It had a big red "x" everything else had a green check mark.

Sent from my SM-N920T using RealGM mobile app

Oh STD, you crack me up, you incorrigible dentist. Don't ever change. Without even bothering to recheck the link, you repeat the original false assertion and add additional false information.

Next to "Audited financials prepared by independent accountant" there is a check mark, indicating that yes, they are audited by an independent source. The big red "x" is in a lower section entitled "Is the following information easily accessible on the charity's website?" next to "Audited Financials" and "Form 990". WRONG! AGAIN! AND AGAIN!

The audited financials are prepared by independent accountant, but haven't been posted online. Anyone who can read and analyze data with even modest care understands the vast difference between what you claim and what the evidence you yourself cite supports. That link is for the Maryland chapter, not the DC chapter, which has both listed on its website, so not posting the data is apparently not an organizational policy, and based on my experiences with them, they run their websites (and many other things) on a shoestring budget, with various functions occasionally not working. Not a surprise with a small charity.

So, completely wrong, proven undeniably wrong, double down and extend wrongness, so as to be even more wrong. Who does that sound like? Hmmmm. Don't disappoint me by admitting a thing. Don't you have some sour faced press secretary to take care of this for you?

I'll tell you what, I believe they give 85% of contributions to charity recipients a lot more than I believe you write off $350,000 per year in appropriately valued and actual donated dental services. When do you even have the time to do dentistry? You're always here.

[Pointgod]

Other than the part about "turning the women down" this is in the Steele dossier (Pee pee tape).

With recent revelations (Carter Page, Sessions etc) I think we can all safely dispense with the #Fakenews meme.

Read on Twitter

The fact that 1. The FBI hired Michael Steele to continue his work 2. Various parts of the dossier has already been corrobarated as true. Anyone that claims fake news or Russian collusion is willfully ignorant and is directly questioning the integrity of the FBI.

[Wizardspride]

Other than the part about "turning the women down" this is in the Steele dossier (Pee pee tape).

With recent revelations (Carter Page, Sessions etc) I think we can all safely dispense with the #Fakenews meme.

Read on Twitter

The fact that 1. The FBI hired Michael Steele to continue his work 2. Various parts of the dossier has already been corrobarated as true. Anyone that claims fake news or Russian collusion is willfully ignorant and is directly questioning the integrity of the FBI.

Read on Twitter

[t

[closg00]

Other than the part about "turning the women down" this is in the Steele dossier (Pee pee tape).

With recent revelations (Carter Page, Sessions etc) I think we can all safely dispense with the #Fakenews meme.

Read on Twitter

When I saw that Trump long-time bodyguard was going to be testifying, I knew it was a lock that nothing damaging was going to be revealed.

[stilldropin20]

STD, did you get the facts wrong AGAIN? At both House of Ruth pages linked by dck, it says that audited financials were prepared by an independent accountant. Just in case anyone believes you. Jeez, son, do a little homework.

I did check the first link. Everything was checked except independent audit. It had a big red "x" everything else had a green check mark.

Sent from my SM-N920T using RealGM mobile app

Oh STD, you crack me up, you incorrigible dentist. Don't ever change. Without even bothering to recheck the link, you repeat the original false assertion and add additional false information.

Next to "Audited financials prepared by independent accountant" there is a check mark, indicating that yes, they are audited by an independent source. The big red "x" is in a lower section entitled "Is the following information easily accessible on the charity's website?" next to "Audited Financials" and "Form 990". WRONG! AGAIN! AND AGAIN!

The audited financials are prepared by independent accountant, but haven't been posted online. Anyone who can read and analyze data with even modest care understands the vast difference between what you claim and what the evidence you yourself cite supports. That link is for the Maryland chapter, not the DC chapter, which has both listed on its website, so not posting the data is apparently not an organizational policy, and based on my experiences with them, they run their websites (and many other things) on a shoestring budget, with various functions occasionally not working. Not a surprise with a small charity.

So, completely wrong, proven undeniably wrong, double down and extend wrongness, so as to be even more wrong. Who does that sound like? Hmmmm. Don't disappoint me by admitting a thing. Don't you have some sour faced press secretary to take care of this for you?

I'll tell you what, I believe they give 85% of contributions to charity recipients a lot more than I believe you write off $350,000 per year in appropriately valued and actual donated dental services. When do you even have the time to do dentistry? You're always here.

Hey you dig it the most. they seem pretty chill to me man.

Put up a link and I'll send them a few bucks in your name. how bout dat?

Sent from my SM-N920T using RealGM mobile app

[closg00]

Read on Twitter

[t

Didn't see this update when I made my comment, I knew the bodyguard was gonna cover for Trump, Republicans wanted to poke a hole in the pee-pee tape balloon and they knew the bodyguard would deliver.