(10-06-2014 11:38 AM)Kronke Wrote:  

(10-06-2014 11:36 AM)DexterDevil Wrote:  

(10-06-2014 10:45 AM)Kronke Wrote:  

(10-06-2014 08:50 AM)DexterDevil Wrote:  

(10-06-2014 12:00 AM)Kronke Wrote:  Interesting.

We already knew that the average liberal was less charitable. The type that will be a first adopter of the new, trendy hashtag activism campaign, but does it for their own self satisfaction and won't actually ever donate anything. Someone needs to do a study on the rich liberal (gasp). They probably actively steal from charities on the reg.

You literally added no value to this discussion, its not just liberals and its not just conservatives, its greed. Greed does not escape either side.

Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

Obvious liberal hashtag activist is obvious.

Sucks I'm not a liberal... I just want a productive discussion. Besides the attacking belongs in the wild west, not in the spin room.

Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

It was never going to be productive, the OP is an obvious hit piece.

Nonetheless, I'll stop.

His post did show that the more conservative areas are more charitable than the liberal states, but thank you.

Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

Religious people are more charitable...

/thread

I posted this on Mach's thread but apparently it needs to be repeated.

Selective use of information, especially when presented by an apparently unbiased newspaper, can be manipulated to fit the writer's agenda. Using the same information that is included in the source article, you can make the statement that "the top 1% of earners make 58% of all charitable contributions." That's pretty much the similar story for taxes, whereby the wealthiest pay a disproportionately larger share of total tax revenues (reminder, the top 1% pay 38% of all income taxes).

We also aren't provided baseline information, except for the median contribution of the wealthy. It might be that the base line median contribution for those below the lower income levels was $50.00 and they upped it to $51.00.

Furthermore, this is based on income tax filings and not estate taxes. For example, it has been reported that Ralph Wilson's estate, will use the proceeds from the sale of the Buffalo Bills to fund a charitable trust. This amount will likely exceed $500 million and wouldn't be included in any calculations as presented.

I sincerely hope that this passes the litmus test of adding to the discussion.

(10-06-2014 11:51 AM)Smaug Wrote:  Okay, so let's back it up a step. Which is ultimately more beneficial to others?

That wholly depends on the specific circumstances of each job/charity.

(10-06-2014 12:24 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(10-06-2014 11:51 AM)Smaug Wrote:  Okay, so let's back it up a step. Which is ultimately more beneficial to others?

That wholly depends on the specific circumstances of each job/charity.

Give a man a fish...

(10-06-2014 12:42 PM)Smaug Wrote:  

(10-06-2014 12:24 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(10-06-2014 11:51 AM)Smaug Wrote:  Okay, so let's back it up a step. Which is ultimately more beneficial to others?

That wholly depends on the specific circumstances of each job/charity.

Give a man a fish...

And he'd be better off than losing an arm in a textile mill.

(10-06-2014 12:43 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(10-06-2014 12:42 PM)Smaug Wrote:  

(10-06-2014 12:24 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(10-06-2014 11:51 AM)Smaug Wrote:  Okay, so let's back it up a step. Which is ultimately more beneficial to others?

That wholly depends on the specific circumstances of each job/charity.

Give a man a fish...

And he'd be better off than losing an arm in a textile mill.

Yeah, because working for a living will lead to maiming.

I don't think Evil Knievel could have made that particular leap. Nice work.

(10-06-2014 12:45 PM)Smaug Wrote:  

(10-06-2014 12:43 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(10-06-2014 12:42 PM)Smaug Wrote:  

(10-06-2014 12:24 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(10-06-2014 11:51 AM)Smaug Wrote:  Okay, so let's back it up a step. Which is ultimately more beneficial to others?

That wholly depends on the specific circumstances of each job/charity.

Give a man a fish...

And he'd be better off than losing an arm in a textile mill.

Yeah, because working for a living will lead to maiming.

I don't think Evil Knievel could have made that particular leap. Nice work.

Like I said, it depends on the specifics. I gave you a specific you didn't like, but that doesn't make it any less valid.

(10-06-2014 12:48 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(10-06-2014 12:45 PM)Smaug Wrote:  

(10-06-2014 12:43 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(10-06-2014 12:42 PM)Smaug Wrote:  

(10-06-2014 12:24 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  That wholly depends on the specific circumstances of each job/charity.

Give a man a fish...

And he'd be better off than losing an arm in a textile mill.

Yeah, because working for a living will lead to maiming.

I don't think Evil Knievel could have made that particular leap. Nice work.

Like I said, it depends on the specifics. I gave you a specific you didn't like, but that doesn't make it any less valid.

Oh, I see.

Okay, how about this: All other things being equal, health, safety, whatnot, is it better or worse to give him the damn fish or teach him to fish?

It's a simple question.

(10-06-2014 10:44 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

(10-06-2014 10:31 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(10-06-2014 09:31 AM)bevotex Wrote:  

(10-06-2014 09:26 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Nice Job Socratic.

I need to find the article I reead a month ago though that showed what a family that made 30,000 paid in taxes vs. a guy who made a million. The percent of each was insane. I'll find the article. Again, I'll add, nice retort but in the end. The little guy is paying a much higher percentage of his wage than the bigger guy.

Fairtax legislation would fix that

No it wouldn't.

Envy sure as heck isn't the answer either.

Neither are marshmallows, and they have just as much to do with my post as envy does.

(10-06-2014 12:45 PM)Smaug Wrote:  

(10-06-2014 12:43 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(10-06-2014 12:42 PM)Smaug Wrote:  

(10-06-2014 12:24 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(10-06-2014 11:51 AM)Smaug Wrote:  Okay, so let's back it up a step. Which is ultimately more beneficial to others?

That wholly depends on the specific circumstances of each job/charity.

Give a man a fish...

And he'd be better off than losing an arm in a textile mill.

Yeah, because working for a living will lead to maiming.

I don't think Evil Knievel could have made that particular leap. Nice work.

It's the gimmie gimme mentality.

(10-06-2014 12:52 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(10-06-2014 10:44 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

(10-06-2014 10:31 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(10-06-2014 09:31 AM)bevotex Wrote:  

(10-06-2014 09:26 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Nice Job Socratic.

I need to find the article I reead a month ago though that showed what a family that made 30,000 paid in taxes vs. a guy who made a million. The percent of each was insane. I'll find the article. Again, I'll add, nice retort but in the end. The little guy is paying a much higher percentage of his wage than the bigger guy.

Fairtax legislation would fix that

No it wouldn't.

Envy sure as heck isn't the answer either.

Neither are marshmallows, and they have just as much to do with my post as envy does.

If you say so. Carry on.

(10-06-2014 12:52 PM)Smaug Wrote:  

(10-06-2014 12:48 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(10-06-2014 12:45 PM)Smaug Wrote:  

(10-06-2014 12:43 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(10-06-2014 12:42 PM)Smaug Wrote:  Give a man a fish...

And he'd be better off than losing an arm in a textile mill.

Yeah, because working for a living will lead to maiming.

I don't think Evil Knievel could have made that particular leap. Nice work.

Like I said, it depends on the specifics. I gave you a specific you didn't like, but that doesn't make it any less valid.

Oh, I see.

Okay, how about this: All other things being equal, health, safety, whatnot, is it better or worse to give him the damn fish or teach him to fish?

It's a simple question.

That's an inherently flawed analogy. The fisherman who is working doesn't get to keep the fish, he gets to keep whatever wage he has earned for catching the fish for his employer.

(10-06-2014 12:52 PM)VA49er Wrote:  

(10-06-2014 12:45 PM)Smaug Wrote:  

(10-06-2014 12:43 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(10-06-2014 12:42 PM)Smaug Wrote:  

(10-06-2014 12:24 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  That wholly depends on the specific circumstances of each job/charity.

Give a man a fish...

And he'd be better off than losing an arm in a textile mill.

Yeah, because working for a living will lead to maiming.

I don't think Evil Knievel could have made that particular leap. Nice work.

It's the gimmie gimme mentality.

It's easier to dismiss others when you just broadly mischaracterize their beliefs into something that no rational person would believe, isn't it? The problem is, just because that's how it works in your head doesn't mean that's how it works in reality.

(10-06-2014 12:55 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(10-06-2014 12:52 PM)Smaug Wrote:  

(10-06-2014 12:48 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(10-06-2014 12:45 PM)Smaug Wrote:  

(10-06-2014 12:43 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  And he'd be better off than losing an arm in a textile mill.

Yeah, because working for a living will lead to maiming.

I don't think Evil Knievel could have made that particular leap. Nice work.

Like I said, it depends on the specifics. I gave you a specific you didn't like, but that doesn't make it any less valid.

Oh, I see.

Okay, how about this: All other things being equal, health, safety, whatnot, is it better or worse to give him the damn fish or teach him to fish?

It's a simple question.

That's an inherently flawed analogy. The fisherman who is working doesn't get to keep the fish, he gets to keep whatever wage he has earned for catching the fish for his employer.

You're being deliberately argumentative.

Does he not get something of value for his work? Does he not get the gratifying feeling of having earned it?

(10-06-2014 12:57 PM)Smaug Wrote:  

(10-06-2014 12:55 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(10-06-2014 12:52 PM)Smaug Wrote:  

(10-06-2014 12:48 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(10-06-2014 12:45 PM)Smaug Wrote:  Yeah, because working for a living will lead to maiming.

I don't think Evil Knievel could have made that particular leap. Nice work.

Like I said, it depends on the specifics. I gave you a specific you didn't like, but that doesn't make it any less valid.

Oh, I see.

Okay, how about this: All other things being equal, health, safety, whatnot, is it better or worse to give him the damn fish or teach him to fish?

It's a simple question.

That's an inherently flawed analogy. The fisherman who is working doesn't get to keep the fish, he gets to keep whatever wage he has earned for catching the fish for his employer.

You're being deliberately argumentative.

Does he not get something of value for his work? Does he not get the gratifying feeling of having earned it?

Hopefully, yes. But that's not the reality for every job, which is sort of the point I'm trying to make.

(10-06-2014 12:56 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(10-06-2014 12:52 PM)VA49er Wrote:  

(10-06-2014 12:45 PM)Smaug Wrote:  

(10-06-2014 12:43 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(10-06-2014 12:42 PM)Smaug Wrote:  Give a man a fish...

And he'd be better off than losing an arm in a textile mill.

Yeah, because working for a living will lead to maiming.

I don't think Evil Knievel could have made that particular leap. Nice work.

It's the gimmie gimme mentality.

It's easier to dismiss others when you just broadly mischaracterize their beliefs into something that no rational person would believe, isn't it? The problem is, just because that's how it works in your head doesn't mean that's how it works in reality.

So, teaching folks how to do something is not as important as just given them the "answer" per say? Or are you suggesting that those that need help be given the help and then taught later? I can see that as a short term solution.

(10-06-2014 12:59 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(10-06-2014 12:57 PM)Smaug Wrote:  

(10-06-2014 12:55 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(10-06-2014 12:52 PM)Smaug Wrote:  

(10-06-2014 12:48 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  Like I said, it depends on the specifics. I gave you a specific you didn't like, but that doesn't make it any less valid.

Oh, I see.

Okay, how about this: All other things being equal, health, safety, whatnot, is it better or worse to give him the damn fish or teach him to fish?

It's a simple question.

That's an inherently flawed analogy. The fisherman who is working doesn't get to keep the fish, he gets to keep whatever wage he has earned for catching the fish for his employer.

You're being deliberately argumentative.

Does he not get something of value for his work? Does he not get the gratifying feeling of having earned it?

Hopefully, yes. But that's not the reality for every job, which is sort of the point I'm trying to make.

bull****.

Slavery was outlawed a long time ago.

(10-06-2014 01:01 PM)Smaug Wrote:  

(10-06-2014 12:59 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(10-06-2014 12:57 PM)Smaug Wrote:  

(10-06-2014 12:55 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(10-06-2014 12:52 PM)Smaug Wrote:  Oh, I see.

Okay, how about this: All other things being equal, health, safety, whatnot, is it better or worse to give him the damn fish or teach him to fish?

It's a simple question.

That's an inherently flawed analogy. The fisherman who is working doesn't get to keep the fish, he gets to keep whatever wage he has earned for catching the fish for his employer.

You're being deliberately argumentative.

Does he not get something of value for his work? Does he not get the gratifying feeling of having earned it?

Hopefully, yes. But that's not the reality for every job, which is sort of the point I'm trying to make.

bull****.

Slavery was outlawed a long time ago.

Yes, there have been no recent cases of employers forcing employees to work off the clock, most certainly not with the largest employer outside of the federal government.

Quote:The Chronicle, a leading source of news coverage of the nonprofit world, said in a report being released Monday that Americans who earned $200,000 or more reduced the share of their income they gave to charity by 4.6 percent from 2006 to 2012. Those earning less than $100,000 donated 4.5 percent more of their income, the report said.

The Chronicle's analysis was based on tax returns filed by Americans who itemize their deductions, including their charitable gifts.

An example of how you can change the rules of virtually anything to tell whatever story you want to tell

1) The poor don't itemize their deductions, so any inclusion of them in this number is not factual
2) Lots of middle class also don't itemize, so they too would not be part of the study.
3) 4.4 vs 4.5 seems to be within some margin of error
4) 100,000 is certainly a round number, but somewhat arbitrary. Many very very very wealthy people report very small amounts of "AGI" which is what this is compared to and not someone's 'wealth'.

In other words, this is merely an intentional attempt to INCREASE the 'class warfare' arguments.