Posted on 12/14/2014 5:04:48 AM PST by Kaslin
With the attempt to limit the deductibility of contributions to charities by high-earners, the Obama Administration has opened a multi-front attack against the American tradition of “neighbor helping neighbor” and financially successful people turning large portions of their wealth over to charities that improve the American culture in august manners. The governmental power grab competes with the attempts to control the financial sector for its significance and may exceed it in the long-term effect upon our culture.
One first has to marvel at how liberals can twist logic to rationalize a tax increase. It happens regularly from the local government level up to the national level. Does anyone really believe that the cameras at intersections are for driver safety? The politicians preach about how lives are being saved while what they are really doing is extorting more monies for their various projects.
In the same manner, the Obama team worked hard to define their argument to limit the benefit deduction. They outlined three main points. The first is that high-income people should not get greater tax benefit than people taxed at the lower rate of 28 percent. They then argue the tax-benefit would be the same that was provided during the Reagan era when the top rate for everyone was 28 percent. These are marvelous twists of semantics that would delight any Orwellian scholar. These assertions beg the question of a lower top rate or a flat tax. The last point they make is just totally bogus and must have derived from some obscure study by a misguided PhD. The President stating with a straight face that tax benefits have little influence upon charitable decisions displays either his naiveté or his disingenuousness.
Republicans fell for a similar argument during the Bush 41 Administration. The Democrats argued for the income tax rate at 31 percent stating that the phasing out of deductions created a bubble and that certain people were getting an advantage. This new rate would bring everyone to a true 28 percent; thus equalizing taxes. The Republicans foolishly bought that argument – merely a precursor for the next argument. Not long after, the second step of raising the rate to 31 percent was argued for because now the top earners were paying a 28 percent on their top income, and it would only be fair to raise the top rate to 31 percent for all income. This same convoluted logic will be used as the first step toward eliminating the charitable contribution for everyone.
One might conclude, upon reading the left-leaning press, that a tax-benefited gift to charity is a nefarious scheme. This press and its followers revolt against the fact that religious organizations benefit from these gifts. An assertion is made that the tax benefit constitutes stealing money from the government even though the money is used for deeds that actually help people.
American volunteerism has been assaulted by the establishment of AmeriCorps and the recent passage of the Serve America Act of 2009. No longer will Americans work to improve their community through the United Appeal, Red Cross or hundreds of other noble organizations. Now young and old Americans are being paid to “volunteer” for projects that charities did more efficiently. With the ever growing involvement of government in charities the omnipotent control will follow.
During the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, a prime example of the difference between how the government and a non-profit operates was obvious. A convoy of Red Cross trucks sat waiting to help the citizens at the Superdome, while Michael Brown, the then-FEMA director, sought authorization from the government of Louisiana. He could not contact his counterpart at the state level since that person was in prison on corruption charges, and no one filled that position for making emergency management decisions. He contacted then-Governor Blanco, who dithered while the people suffered, and finally decided against sending in the Red Cross. Left to its own devices, the Red Cross, experts on crisis management, would have immediately aided the people and avoided one of the blackest marks in American history.
We have seen people time and again tackle problems through charitable operations that government would allow to languish in political debate while elected officials worry about their next election. Does anyone really believe that we would have made the heroic efforts Jerry Lewis has achieved to eradicate muscular dystrophy if left up to the government? Or if Nancy Brinker’s sister had not contracted breast cancer, does anyone believe the Susan G. Komen Foundation would have been equaled by the government in the saving of women’s lives.
Stories like this abound in America because our past political leaders realized government could not do all. Encouragement of Americans to conquer problems from education deficiency to drug-abuse to cures for disease could be accomplished through the vital efforts of average people who created a passion to help.
Paying people to do good while limiting people’s tax benefit to do good leads us down the wrong path. Instead of expanding governmental control and limiting charities, President Obama should set an example by working with charities to solve problems the government will never solve. His onslaught against independent entities helping fellow Americans needs to stop. This centralizing of money and control in the federal government will lead our country down the bleakest road imaginable. It will destroy the essence of America that was defined ages ago by de Tocqueville, thus reducing us to merely an ordinary rather than extraordinary country.
There is no human transaction wanna-be despots do not want to control. They not only get to skim off the top, but get the obeisance they crave.
All politicians who are promoting this should disclose their income tax forms in complete detail (minus their SSN), including all deductions. Let’s see how generous they have been in supporting charity.
If the government hands out benefits', the Government controls who gets them.
If private charities hand out aid to people, the Government can be undermined.
Whole groups of people can be excluded if the Government controls all.
Note, there is NO CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORIZATION for the Government to serve as a charity. NONE.
He wants all help to come from government. Non-profits stand in the way.
In a Communist system private charity is illegal because it is “demeaning” to the recipients and because it as a slap at the State and its ability to maintain Utopia where there is no Want.
It’s why the Church gets clobbered. It used to be mostly a PR game here in the states. Now with Obamacare and the like, they’re aiming for the pocketbook. Most Americans today do not remember the atrocities possible from dicators, but when push comes to shove, they’re going to.
I remember, however, that it was a combination of secular and religious conviction that started the Polish revolution that eventually brought down the USSR.
During the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, a prime example of the difference between how the government and a non-profit operates was obvious. A convoy of Red Cross trucks sat waiting to help the citizens at the Superdome, while Michael Brown, the then-FEMA director, sought authorization from the government of Louisiana.
This is on the heads of the Americans who just sat there like lumps when it became obvious that officialdom was dithering. Government exists to serve US. WE do exist to serve government.
“NOT” We do NOT exist to serve gov’t.
One might conclude, upon reading the left-leaning press, that a tax-benefited gift to charity is a nefarious scheme.
Some of the richest people I know, are Liberals who work for non-profits.
Not unlike what Henry VIII did to stamp out charitable works of the Catholic Church in the late 1530s and early 1540s . . . and for much the same reasons.
charity begins at home
the communists hate The Home
the Church had always been the Home of Charity in this Nation before gubment’s financial burden’s removed much of the money the American Home gave to Charity ...
Obie wants to FINISH that process
We can't have non-profits helping people
unless the Government, or its supporters get 'a cut of the action'
It's the Chicago way !!
This article raises some good points, but I don’t think this is a battle worth fighting. Under the U.S. tax code, many “charities” have become nothing more than government-approved rackets. Even though they don’t operate to turn a profit, they pay enormous salaries to directors (many of them retired politicians) and administrative staff.
The writer misleads his readers by using the term liberal instead of calling them what they really are, fascist/socialists.
Could this be a WH/Democrat Ponzi scheme in progress?
While they bash Wall Street publicly, leaders of the Democrats' mega-funder "The Democracy Alliance" have quietly recruited venture capitalists, bankers and hedge fund moguls -- along with union bosses and red-diaper trust fund babies -- to fund their takeover goals. ....$230,000 public school union dues go to the Democrats' "Democracy Alliance."
"The Democracy Alliance" does not itself raise and spend a great deal of money. Rather, being a partner in the Alliance requires one to contribute large amounts to other left-wing groups. The Alliance evaluates left-wing organizations on various criteria, and makes recommendations to its members as to where they should put their money. Currently, the Alliance lists 21 groups in its “Aligned Network”:
<><> America Votes, American Constitution Society, Black Civic Engagement Fund, Brennan Center, Catalyst, Center for American Progress, Center for Community Change, Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, Common Purpose Project, Fund for the Republic, Latino Engagement Fund, Media Matters for America, New Media Ventures, New Organizing Institute, Organizing For Action, Progressive Majority, Progress Now, State Engagement Initiative, State Voices, Women’s Equality Center and Youth Engagement Fund.
==============================================
T/D/A just purged the name of Obama's Ebola Czar, Ron Klain, off its website--Klain is connected to the left-wing "The Third Way."
==================================================
The most interesting of the T/D/A documents that have come to light is the one that contains T/D/A’s “investment recommendations” for 2014. Not only does it list the recommended organizations, but it rates each organization in several categories, sets out the group’s budget for 2014, and shows how much of that budget should be contributed by the 100 members of the "Democracy Alliance." One category in which T/D/A rates the organizations is “Collaboration,” as T/D/A believes that all left-wing groups should coordinate their activities for maximum political impact.
Opportunistic pols like Harry Reid have denounced Charles and David Koch, and others, who contribute to conservative causes as “shadowy,” “secretive” people who dare infest politics with “dark money.”
In that context, it is worth noting that most of the groups to which The Democracy Alliance, and its elite liberal members, contribute are 501(c)(4)s that do not disclose their donors.
===============================================
ANALYSIS Buncha sap-happy Dummy/dopes are feeding the Democrats' Democracy Alliance lotsa money---thinking its safe.....going to a "good thing."
That's exactly how Madoff operated. Money-laundering, tax evasion was part of the Madoff mix---helping investors, foundations, and tax-exempts break the law in a seemingly legal way.
Madoff helped himself to the untraceable money in the process.....and got himself in trouble. When he went to jail for 125 years, investigators found Ponzi King Madoff had stashed billions offshore---into a labyrinth of financial entities.
COLLUSION AND CONSPIRACIES GALORE Some $8.9 billion was funneled to Madoff through a dozen so-called feeder funds based in Europe, the Caribbean and Central America......a labyrinth of hedge funds, management companies and service providers that, to unsuspecting outsiders, seemed to compose a formidable system of checks and balances.
But the purpose of this complex financial architecture was just the opposite: the feeder funds provided different modes for directing money to Madoff in order to avoid scrutiny.
Dummycrats apparently took notes.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.