Jump to content

US Politics: Sorry, we do make the rules.


LongRider

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, Mlle. Zabzie said:

I'm with @Varysblackfyre321 on this one.  What they like most is controlling the expenditure and also getting the positive externalities of giving.  The tax benefit is certainly important, but it's not the whole story there.

Exactly. They like to control how the money is spent, often times diverting it from the needy because they don't actually give a fuck about them to entities that backdoor help those with means. Reading about how billionaires can write off a ton of taxes because they're donating to groups trying to keep taxes as low as possible for the wealthy... well let's just say we're long overdue for our own French Revolution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was reading the Feb. issue of Scientific American and came across an article showing how the death rate following  covid has dropped back to normal for most countries. Except for the US. There the rate is staying higher than the pre covid death rate. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Exactly. They like to control how the money is spent, often times diverting it from the needy because they don't actually give a fuck about them to entities that backdoor help those with means. Reading about how billionaires can write off a ton of taxes because they're donating to groups trying to keep taxes as low as possible for the wealthy... well let's just say we're long overdue for our own French Revolution.

Donations to most of those entities should not be giving rise to a charitable deduction (there may be a business expense deduction but that is different).   The thing that is more problematic in my view is whether schools (whether primary or secondary) and arts institutions should be able to receive tax deductible contributions (I can argue either side compellingly).  I also think the process to approve new charities and to oversee charities by the IRS is fundamentally broken.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Mlle. Zabzie said:

Donations to most of those entities should not be giving rise to a charitable deduction (there may be a business expense deduction but that is different).   The thing that is more problematic in my view is whether schools (whether primary or secondary) and arts institutions should be able to receive tax deductible contributions (I can argue either side compellingly).  I also think the process to approve new charities and to oversee charities by the IRS is fundamentally broken.

I cannot source it, but I remember seeing that the majority of NFL owners who donated money to supposed 'Social Justice' campaigns in the wake of George Floyd's murder actually ended up sending that money to a bunch of Republican political PACs and shit. 

It was the least surprising thing I ever heard

I assumed when I read the thing and still do that they wrote off these 'donations' on their taxes as well

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Exactly. They like to control how the money is spent, often times diverting it from the needy because they don't actually give a fuck about them to entities that backdoor help those with means. Reading about how billionaires can write off a ton of taxes because they're donating to groups trying to keep taxes as low as possible for the wealthy... well let's just say we're long overdue for our own French Revolution.

This isn't particularly accurate. While they like to control the money and do often divert it, the important thing is not to just give it to the rich - though that's always great. The important thing is to make sure it does not go to those they deem unworthy, which most of the time means it should not go to minorities. The best example of this is the massive amount of funding spent on rehabilitation and care of those hit by the opioid addiction crisis - that is seen as perfectly fine and good and important. Helping anyone else though? Not if they're black!

This has been and continues to be one of the weaknesses of the progressive left's viewpoints; they often reduce everything to a class and wealth status, when in the US there is significant more nuance and significantly more issues around ethnic minority oppression that cannot be explained by class status and wealth status alone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, whatever... said:

I cannot source it, but I remember seeing that the majority of NFL owners who donated money to supposed 'Social Justice' campaigns in the wake of George Floyd's murder actually ended up sending that money to a bunch of Republican political PACs and shit. 

It was the least surprising thing I ever heard

I assumed when I read the thing and still do that they wrote off these 'donations' on their taxes as well

No one (reputable) would sign the return unless the organization was a charity and the donation was substantiated in accordance with section 170 and the associated regulations. I don’t know the details but a PAC isn’t a 501(c)(3) charity and so there wouldn’t be a charitable deduction. Doesn’t mean they weren’t being nefarious in all sorts of ways but not sure I would make that assumption (at least as a charitable donation). Incidentally if the organization was a political advocacy group on the other side of things similar result. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Gaston de Foix said:

Leo McGarry: We don't always know how it ends! (falls down with a heart attack: apologies to the memory of the incomparable John Spencer).

Too soon!  Although Leo's "we don't always know how it ends!!!" scene was great.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Mlle. Zabzie said:

Donations to most of those entities should not be giving rise to a charitable deduction (there may be a business expense deduction but that is different).   The thing that is more problematic in my view is whether schools (whether primary or secondary) and arts institutions should be able to receive tax deductible contributions (I can argue either side compellingly).  I also think the process to approve new charities and to oversee charities by the IRS is fundamentally broken.

I give you George Mason University's economics department...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Mlle. Zabzie said:

Nope not falling in that trap.  

What's the trap? Is it inaccurate to say a handful of uber wealthy individuals dodged paying taxes by donating a lot of money to a few universities, and then heavily leaned on them to push certain theories and students that would advocate for them, especially in the think tanks that were also funded by the former for their own financial benefit? No one would ever...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, Mlle. Zabzie said:

No one (reputable) would sign the return unless the organization was a charity and the donation was substantiated in accordance with section 170 and the associated regulations. I don’t know the details but a PAC isn’t a 501(c)(3) charity and so there wouldn’t be a charitable deduction. Doesn’t mean they weren’t being nefarious in all sorts of ways but not sure I would make that assumption (at least as a charitable donation). Incidentally if the organization was a political advocacy group on the other side of things similar result. 

Right on

Yeah, I may well have the particulars wrong. I just know scumbags scumbag 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

What's the trap? Is it inaccurate to say a handful of uber wealthy individuals dodged paying taxes by donating a lot of money to a few universities, and then heavily leaned on them to push certain theories and students that would advocate for them, especially in the think tanks that were also funded by the former for their own financial benefit? No one would ever...

It's a trap to get into the discussion on George Mason, which you picked for a rhetorical reason, and I'm not going there or on the ancillary academic speech questions.  George Mason is public and funded by the taxpayers of Virginia, in greatest part FWIW.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Slotkin preps Senate run after winning tough reelection bid:

Quote

In what is quickly emerging as one of the most closely watched Senate races of the 2024 campaign, Slotkin is aggressively acting on Stabenow’s call for “the next generation of leadership.” The 46-year-old former CIA intelligence officer is taking steps to prepare for a Senate run, including forming a national campaign team, according to an aide close to the congresswoman who requested anonymity to discuss planning.

In the interview, Slotkin nodded to the plans, saying she was putting her “ducks in a row” before an announcement.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Mlle. Zabzie said:

It's a trap to get into the discussion on George Mason, which you picked for a rhetorical reason, and I'm not going there or on the ancillary academic speech questions.  George Mason is public and funded by the taxpayers of Virginia, in greatest part FWIW.

I picked it because it's an easy and pretty obvious example, but it's not like this doesn't go on all over the country. And also, a department's funding isn't the same as the entire university. If you don't want to talk about this subject, that's fine, though I think I'm very much in the right to say this is a way certain people have used to avoid paying taxes while using those very same resources to further help them to pay even less in the future. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Zorral said:

Republicans in Iowa want to ban food stamp recipients from buying foods like "white bread (gotta be brown), fresh meat (gotta be processed or tinned), white rice (gotta be brown, cooking oil (boil everything?), etc."

Poachers return you all!  Gonna arrest anybody with rabbit meat or venison or wild turkey, goose, duck, squirrel, etc.

Ya the future is definitely not a place I want to live. Particularly with AI chat etc. telling me the noose.

Are these stupid pigfuckers still billing themselves as the party of small, non-intrusive government?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, DanteGabriel said:

Are these stupid pigfuckers still billing themselves as the party of small, non-intrusive government?

It's not intended to have been examined rationally or intelligently -- it's just disruption and cruelty for its own lolz.  When is everybody else ever going to get this through our heads?  Stupid, cruel, ugly, irrational ARE  the goals.  You can't argue with stupid, cruel, ugly IRRATIONAL.  Facts are over.

And no, They aren't embarrassed an iota.  They are the ruling class.  These thing do not touch or affect or apply to Them.

In the meantime though --

https://www.calbar.ca.gov/About-Us/News/News-Releases/attorney-john-eastman-charged-with-multiple-disciplinary-counts-by-the-state-bar-of-california

Nevertheless, no change until the charges are proven.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

Exactly. They like to control how the money is spent, often times diverting it from the needy because they don't actually give a fuck about them to entities that backdoor help those with means. Reading about how billionaires can write off a ton of taxes because they're donating to groups trying to keep taxes as low as possible for the wealthy... well let's just say we're long overdue for our own French Revolution.

I believe the old line is "If you make peaceful change impossible then violent change becomes inevitable", or something to that effect.

Quote

Are these stupid pigfuckers still billing themselves as the party of small, non-intrusive government?

Small enough to fit in every grocery store, library, classroom, doctor's office, bedroom, public toilet, and womb in America. Do you know how small it has to be to do that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Tywin et al. said:

I picked it because it's an easy and pretty obvious example, but it's not like this doesn't go on all over the country. And also, a department's funding isn't the same as the entire university. If you don't want to talk about this subject, that's fine, though I think I'm very much in the right to say this is a way certain people have used to avoid paying taxes while using those very same resources to further help them to pay even less in the future. 

Sure, we can talk about it.  But George Mason is a piss poor example of what you are trying to prove.  You can donate to state and local governments or instrumentalities thereof and get a deduction under 501(c)(3).  That’s what George Mason is.  And you don’t like the content of the research and analysis George Mason puts out?  Too bad.  They are a state institution, and their speech can be whatever you want it to be.  Do conservative folks who don’t like taxes donate a lot there?  Sure.  Would you be as unhappy if the same people were donating to Berkeley?  Not sure.  You tell me.  Now, I know you are on the “abolish the charitable donation” train.   Maybe that is right? But charities provide essential social services that the government doesn’t and realistically won’t here.  So I am not so certain.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Mlle. Zabzie said:

Sure, we can talk about it.  But George Mason is a piss poor example of what you are trying to prove.  You can donate to state and local governments or instrumentalities thereof and get a deduction under 501(c)(3).  That’s what George Mason is.  And you don’t like the content of the research and analysis George Mason puts out?  Too bad.  They are a state institution, and their speech can be whatever you want it to be.  Do conservative folks who don’t like taxes donate a lot there?  Sure.  Would you be as unhappy if the same people were donating to Berkeley?  Not sure.  You tell me.  Now, I know you are on the “abolish the charitable donation” train.   Maybe that is right? But charities provide essential social services that the government doesn’t and realistically won’t here.  So I am not so certain.

Is it fundamentally charity to take money that would actually go to help the needy and divert it to an institution where the chief goal is not to produce sound academics, but instead largely a class of libertarian economists who are being groomed to advocate for cutting taxes for the rich and services for the poor? Because that's what's been happening at George Mason for a long time and it's all happening in plain day. I'm not sure anyone denies it on the conservative side

I'm against money having a serious impact on a curriculum, so if something similar was happening at Berkley to the same extent I'd oppose it. And I'm for charitable write offs, but they should actually be going to charity. The above is a tax avoidance scam with the main goal being to further minimize taxes for the super rich, not help the needy. So again, is that really charity? 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...