Charitable Contributions In Relation To Ideology

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

I don't understand how people can believe in a omnipotent God with a specific moral code and believe that he somehow waits outside of parliament. Transitory reality suggests that If a Christian enters government, his Faith enters with him.

You don't hold you Religion at the door. Who does that? Why would anyone do that?

---

Both Washington and Jefferson were practising Christians, but IIRC they supported the seperation of church and state.

So do I, but not to an extent that is violates sense and transitory reality. You can keep Religion out of the State and the State out of the hair of Religion, but individuals are free to pass in between, carrying their political and religious beliefs to each - and they do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

What do you mean they re-distribute more wealth? The CIA fact book says this?

---

Simple earn more therefore pay more taxes. Taxes is often referred to as a method of income redistribution. Some believe that if people paid less taxes they could voluntarily redistribute their wealth, charity would have to be one of the main methods of doing so. So charity and taxes are both forms of income redistribution.

The CIA factbook has GDP which I used as a close approximation for income.

The article said that liberals earn on average 6% more. That would mean they would also pay more taxes. So another assumption was that the typical overall tax to the man was about a third.

Total the amount of taxes and charity and on average the liberals as quoted in the article would be paying about $400 per annum more in income redistribution.

=][=

Now I'm pretty sure liberals (not old school but the new term for someone who believes in bigger government) are the ones who are more pro tax increases. While conservatives are the ones looking for smaller government and less taxes.

So the liberals who are earning more are asking for more taxes are choosing to contribute more of the wealth in income redistribution via the tax mechanism then the charity one.

=][=

Also got to remember that a lot of charities might be not-for-profit... this doesn't mean that the upper management aren't paid at corporate rates or that a large percentage of the money donated actually reaches those in need. It just means that the company er charity itself can't make a profit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

Simple earn more therefore pay more taxes. Taxes is often referred to as a method of income redistribution. Some believe that if people paid less taxes they could voluntarily redistribute their wealth, charity would have to be one of the main methods of doing so. So charity and taxes are both forms of income redistribution.

The CIA factbook has GDP which I used as a close approximation for income.

The article said that liberals earn on average 6% more. That would mean they would also pay more taxes. So another assumption was that the typical overall tax to the man was about a third.

Total the amount of taxes and charity and on average the liberals as quoted in the article would be paying about $400 per annum more in income redistribution.

=][=

Now I'm pretty sure liberals (not old school but the new term for someone who believes in bigger government) are the ones who are more pro tax increases. While conservatives are the ones looking for smaller government and less taxes.

So the liberals who are earning more are asking for more taxes are choosing to contribute more of the wealth in income redistribution via the tax mechanism then the charity one.

=][=

Also got to remember that a lot of charities might be not-for-profit... this doesn't mean that the upper management aren't paid at corporate rates or that a large percentage of the money donated actually reaches those in need. It just means that the company er charity itself can't make a profit.

---

There is a gradation in our tax system. Someone earning 6% more may not be paying 6% more in taxes. Also, capital gains taxes are different from direct income taxes - blah blah blah. Plus, how many "liberals" are there?

Maybe we should see which group pays more in taxes and what that number difference is. You are just loosely guessing as an Australian about tax revenue in the United States. Show some studies, or an article, or a website -anything at all.

Also - Who wants to pay more taxes? Can anybody in the U.S. on this forum honestly say that they'd like to pay more?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

Plus, how many "liberals" are there?

---

By your standards? A vast horde.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

By your standards? A vast horde.

---

Let me check my personal book of standards... 1 vast Horde equals 15 liberals.

PS - I have entered into a hotseat campaign, which means that for the first time in 6 years I will be active for a prolonged period of time in another sub forum on this website. Wierd, huh?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

There is a gradation in our tax system. Someone earning 6% more may not be paying 6% more in taxes. Also, capital gains taxes are different from direct income taxes - blah blah blah.

---

Generally due to gradation those who earn 6% more will be paying a larger percentage and hence have an even larger redistribution of their wealth. Capital gains generally get a less flat rate then income tax. It is still income redistribution.

My assumption and I noted it in the working is that all the taxes (sales, tariffs, capital, income) probably come out to a third. You can go ahead and get a better approximation if you wish.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

Plus, how many "liberals" are there?

---

The article was looking at individuals not how large a slice of population. So I don't see how that is relevant to the argument that individuals from different ideologies pay more.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

Maybe we should see which group pays more in taxes and what that number difference is. You are just loosely guessing as an Australian about tax revenue in the United States. Show some studies, or an article, or a website -anything at all.

---

I noted that approximation above. You can use other values and plug them in.

From the article Liberals earn 6% more or about $2700 more (and pay ~$500 less in charities
Overall tax on the 6% | approx tax burden | overall redistributed on average
10% | $270 | ~$250 less then conservatives
20% | $540 | ~$40 more then conservatives
25% | $675 | ~$175 more then conservatives
33.3% | $900 | ~$400 more then conservatives
40% | $270 | ~$580 more then conservatives
50% | $270 | ~$850 more then conservatives

It takes a fairly low overall tax threshold for Liberals as listed in the article to be redistributing more of their earnings to others through the mechanisms of taxes and charities. In this basic model they would have to be taxed at less then 20% on all earnings and have zero taxes on spending to redistribute less.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

Also - Who wants to pay more taxes? Can anybody in the U.S. on this forum honestly say that they'd like to pay more?

---

Depends on those who want a strong military, education, physical health, road system, social welfare, mental health system... etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

Generally due to gradation those who earn 6% more will be paying a larger percentage and hence have an even larger redistribution of their wealth. Capital gains generally get a less flat rate then income tax. It is still income redistribution.

My assumption and I noted it in the working is that all the taxes (sales, tariffs, capital, income) probably come out to a third. You can go ahead and get a better approximation if you wish.



The article was looking at individuals not how large a slice of population. So I don't see how that is relevant to the argument that individuals from different ideologies pay more.



I noted that approximation above. You can use other values and plug them in.

From the article Liberals earn 6% more or about $2700 more (and pay ~$500 less in charities
Overall tax on the 6% | approx tax burden | overall redistributed on average
10% | $270 | ~$250 less then conservatives
20% | $540 | ~$40 more then conservatives
25% | $675 | ~$175 more then conservatives
33.3% | $900 | ~$400 more then conservatives
40% | $270 | ~$580 more then conservatives
50% | $270 | ~$850 more then conservatives

It takes a fairly low overall tax threshold for Liberals as listed in the article to be redistributing more of their earnings to others through the mechanisms of taxes and charities. In this basic model they would have to be taxed at less then 20% on all earnings and have zero taxes on spending to redistribute less.

---

Is it then fair to say that liberals are more financially responsible for the occupation of Iraq? Who's to say that the 6% extra goes to charitable U.S. endeavors? Maybe it is bailing out the banks or buying bombs in Iraq? Maybe it was paying the salary of the people who failed to respond to Katrina appropriately - or the salaries of the current administration and the C.I.A.?

What percentage of their taxes are for "income re-distrobution" and what for everything else?

What I meant to say was that if they earn an average of 6% more, who is to say where they lie on the graded bracket? Maybe the bulk of working class liberals are on the top of their income tax bracket and the middle class conservatives are on the bottom of the next bracket up. It could lower the overall difference.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

Depends on those who want a strong military, education, physical health, road system, social welfare, mental health system... etc.

---

Most just want to reduce the share of the others to have an optimal system for the least amount of money, not for individuals to be more heavily taxed. C'mon.