huckelberry wrote:Littlenipper, I think you are welcome to contribute to which ever charity you would like. Neither I nor the government is preventing you from choosing and pursuing the charity you want.
Well, most churches suggest that 10% is what a person should contribute to the running of a church. The government charges an import and export tax, school tax, sales tax, fuel tax, communications tax, income tax, transportation tax, construction tax, death tax, exit tax, etc., etc., etc... This all adds to the cost of everything we buy and sell and eat and live in. In reality the government gets far more that 10 % from the average citizen directly and indirectly. Do you have a bottomless pit of money to give to charities after taxes?
LittleNipper wrote:Well, most churches suggest that 10% is what a person should contribute to the running of a church.
CFR
“We look to not only the spiritual but also the temporal, and we believe that a person who is impoverished temporally cannot blossom spiritually.” Keith McMullin - Counsellor in Presiding Bishopric
"One, two, three...let's go shopping!" Thomas S Monson - Prophet, Seer, Revelator
LittleNipper wrote:The best way to help the downtrodden is to provide an opportunity to work and not give them money to survive. The majority does not wish to support the minority forever. And a very rich person can simply take his gold and run. Gone are the jobs and the opportunities when such happens.
Fascinating. So is this what has happened over the past decade, since the Bush tax cuts? After all, the rich have done extraordinarily well in the past decade and have saved vast amounts of money thanks to the tax cut. And yet the jobs still aren't there.
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.
bcspace wrote: Doubtful. I run a business which makes money. I don't pay tithing on that money because it's part of the business. When I draw a salary, then I pay tithing on that. Romney may have millions, but until he uses it personally, or converts it from one form to another, he's generally immune from taxes (and tithing).
Whether or not the LDS leadership would understand why Romney didn't pay tithing when he is a multi-millionaire, I doubt that it would sit well with the general membership. Maybe that concerns him as much as his low tax rate. (and he never did get back to the press about whether he ever paid less than 15%....hmmm....)
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.
bcspace wrote: Doubtful. I run a business which makes money. I don't pay tithing on that money because it's part of the business. When I draw a salary, then I pay tithing on that. Romney may have millions, but until he uses it personally, or converts it from one form to another, he's generally immune from taxes (and tithing).
It seems to me a business owner ought to pay tithing on the net profits of their business. Especially if the business is a pass through entity. But it can be complicated. I would say if you have a partnership or S Corp you pay tax on salary and on draws or dividends you take out of the business.
beastie wrote:Whether or not the LDS leadership would understand why Romney didn't pay tithing when he is a multi-millionaire, I doubt that it would sit well with the general membership. Maybe that concerns him as much as his low tax rate. (and he never did get back to the press about whether he ever paid less than 15%....hmmm....)
Hmmmm what? Do you believe if Romney paid 15% tax or less that he was criminal in it or was he filing his taxes within the law and thus resulted it a lower tax rate? I have clients that pay lower than 15% at time because they have valid losses from pass through businesses that may offset other income. Nothing wrong with that what so ever. I have one client who took a salary of about $250k per year from his corporation but he had another business that was a passthrough entity that had huge losses in its start up period and for many years those losses created what is called an over all net operating loss for him personally. He paid no tax for a number of years and even was allowed under tax law to carry back the net losses three years to proftiable periods and refund taxes paid in those years. Was he a criminal or unethical for simply applying the tax law to his situation?
Jason Bourne wrote: Hmmmm what? Do you believe if Romney paid 15% tax or less that he was criminal in it or was he filing his taxes within the law and thus resulted it a lower tax rate? I have clients that pay lower than 15% at time because they have valid losses from pass through businesses that may offset other income. Nothing wrong with that what so ever. I have one client who took a salary of about $250k per year from his corporation but he had another business that was a passthrough entity that had huge losses in its start up period and for many years those losses created what is called an over all net operating loss for him personally. He paid no tax for a number of years and even was allowed under tax law to carry back the net losses three years to proftiable periods and refund taxes paid in those years. Was he a criminal or unethical for simply applying the tax law to his situation?
I'm not saying it's illegal at all. I'm saying that Romney could become the poster boy for what many in this country perceive to be an unfair taxing system.
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.
LittleNipper wrote:Charity care is one thing; however, charity is not for the government to embrace on our behalf.
Upon what do you base this doctrinal-sounding viewpoint? The Constitution? Other founding documents? Personal revelation?
But it doesn't even matter where you came up with it. Since a government is a creation and reflection of its people, "proper government functions" are whatever we, the people, want them to be. If the majority of us want to use the mechanism of our government to help the downtrodden (we do), then that's what it should do.
The majority of Americans don't want tax dollars to be given to other countries. The majority of Americans would like to keep most of what they earn. The majority of Americans want people to assume responsibility for themselves and appreciate a free education, while they have the opportunity. The majority of Americans do not like paying for the decissions/mistakes others choose to make over and over. The majority of Americans wish the government would simply leave them alone. The majority of Americans presently feel the Federal Government is wasteful, selfservicing, overpaid, and manipulative. What we've become is a nation by governmental decree, by a monopoly, in spit of the people.
LittleNipper wrote:The majority of Americans don't want tax dollars to be given to other countries. The majority of Americans would like to keep most of what they earn. The majority of Americans want people to assume responsibility for themselves and appreciate a free education, while they have the opportunity. The majority of Americans do not like paying for the decissions/mistakes others choose to make over and over. The majority of Americans wish the government would simply leave them alone. The majority of Americans presently feel the Federal Government is wasteful, selfservicing, overpaid, and manipulative. What we've become is a nation by governmental decree, by a monopoly, in spit of the people.
If you have proof of all this, please feel free to provide it.
This sounds a lot like the Ron Paul platform. I wonder why he isn't the nominee and the favorite to win in November?
"The DNA of fictional populations appears to be the most susceptible to extinction." - Simon Southerton