Nothing Should Be Tax Exempt

[Paddington]

I'm not sure that I believe that, but would anybody care to debate it with me anyways?

I think you have to give over 4 or 5 thousand before any donation counts in a tax way for one thing.
(Correct that if it is needed.)

It is tax deductible to give to:
- abortion
- lying political thingies that don't have a chance
- lying politicical thingies that do have a chance
- false religious teachers
- groups that do some good and some harm
- groups that try to do good and sadly fail
- nice programs that pit the interests of one person against another (such as job training)

Anywho.....that is the start of an argument. It goes thru my mind from time to time.

Peace,
Paddington

[HotRod]

There is no minimum limit of giving before your charitable contributions are tax deductible. The confusion is this, if you don't normally itemize you would have to donate enough to bring all your deductions up past the amount of the standard deduction, and I don't remember how much that is. Since I itemize my returns anyways, ANY contribution I make, is just added onto the "pile" of deductions, even if it was only $10.

[Paddington]

[quote name='HotRod' post='1441681' date='Jan 3 2008, 07:15 PM']There is no minimum limit of giving before your charitable contributions are tax deductible. The confusion is this, if you don't normally itemize you would have to donate enough to bring all your deductions up past the amount of the standard deduction, and I don't remember how much that is. Since I itemize my returns anyways, ANY contribution I make, is just added onto the "pile" of deductions, even if it was only $10.[/quote]

I guess I am confused then. But, I'm pretty sure the H & R lady told me that.

BTW, how do you itemize? It doesn't sound difficult. So I don't know why I wouldn't have done it.

Edited January 3, 2008 by Paddington

[HotRod]

itemize means to add up all of your tax-deductable items for the year, item by item. I'll use a young single apartment renter as an example...

church tith, 2,500

and for a lot of young renters, that would be it.

So say the standard deduction is $12,500. You deduct the larger of the 2, your itemized list or the standard. This person would have to donate over 10,000 to beat the standard and see any tax benefit. a $20 donation to planned parenthood wouild have no tax benefit for this person.

Another tax payer item by item adds up to 15,000 (home loan interest, day care expenses, etc) Since they are over the standard deduction, everything just adds to their final total. A $20 donation to planned parenthood would have a small tax benefit for this person.

understand? Probably in your situation, you would have to donate a lot of $ to see any tax benifit.

so, quick answer to your question why you don't itemize, i would guess because your itemized list would fall far short of the standard deduction.

Edited January 3, 2008 by HotRod

[HotRod]

But on to the debate, yes I think the IRS should be more stringent in deciding what and what is not a charitable organization. Maybe someone here knows what that criteria is? Maybe any non-profit or tax free organization qualifies.

[Paddington]

Thanks again HotRod.

I think that I catch your drift.

Also, my opening argument was only thinking of charitable contributions. It would be too hard-core for me to think about medical bills and renting as not tax-deductible.


Anywho...any debaters yet??? One man's charity is another man's hell-hole. Your move!

[Winchester]

[quote name='Paddington' post='1441690' date='Jan 3 2008, 03:57 PM']BTW, how do you itemize? It doesn't sound difficult. So I don't know why I wouldn't have done it. [/quote]
Because you [s]are[/s] were ignorant.

[Paddington]

[quote name='Winchester' post='1441770' date='Jan 3 2008, 11:11 PM']Because you are ignorant.[/quote]

Rude.

[Winchester]

[quote name='Paddington' post='1441773' date='Jan 3 2008, 07:53 PM']Rude.[/quote]
True. If you don't know about something, you are ignorant. You asked a question. I answered. If I were ignorant of anything, I would gladly admit it.

[Paddington]

BTW, I wouldn't mind being not ignorant of how you do that line-crossing-thing.

[Winchester]

[quote name='Paddington' post='1441779' date='Jan 3 2008, 08:10 PM']

BTW, I wouldn't mind being not ignorant of how you do that line-crossing-thing.[/quote]
Second row on your posting info, drop down menu with the upper and lower case A. After putting the simple sentence, I thought it might come over as more mean than funny, so I edited it. Unfortunately not before you saw the shorter version.

[Paddington]

Thanks

[Winchester]

[quote name='Paddington' post='1441786' date='Jan 3 2008, 08:25 PM']Thanks [/quote]

You owe me.

I shall note it in the log.

[Paddington]

I'll pay you if you don't shoot me.

[Winchester]

[quote name='Paddington' post='1441790' date='Jan 3 2008, 08:35 PM']I'll pay you if you don't shoot me. [/quote]
I'm not loaded for bear.

[Adrestia]

[quote name='Paddington' post='1441670' date='Jan 3 2008, 02:32 PM']I'm not sure that I believe that, but would anybody care to debate it with me anyways?

I think you have to give over 4 or 5 thousand before any donation counts in a tax way for one thing.
(Correct that if it is needed.)

It is tax deductible to give to:
- abortion
- lying political thingies that don't have a chance
- lying politicical thingies that do have a chance
- false religious teachers
- groups that do some good and some harm
- groups that try to do good and sadly fail
- nice programs that pit the interests of one person against another (such as job training)

Anywho.....that is the start of an argument. It goes thru my mind from time to time.

Peace,
Paddington[/quote]
I think I might disagree... but I'm not sure if I fully understand your position.

Are you proposing the elimination of section 501c(3) of the Internal Revenue Code? [Are you saying that contributions to any charitable organization should [i]not[/i] be tax deductible because you disagree with the morality of some charitable organizations?]

If so, I disagree on principle. JP2 said, "Freedom consists not in doing what we like, but in having the right to do what we ought." True freedom includes the ability to make mistakes.

That being said, I would eliminate 501c(3) and every other section of the Internal Revenue Code because it's a stupid code that penalizes hard working, productive people who chose to save and invest their money rather than spend it or give it away. True charity doesn't have monetary kickbacks. (I do itemize and I do deduct most of my charitable contributions.)

Edited January 4, 2008 by tgoldson

[Laudate_Dominum]

Haha, since this is in the debate table I’ll try to ruffle some feathers just for fun. What follows is to some degree tongue-in-cheek.

Nothing should be taxed. A government that raises revenue by the imposition of taxes on the masses is hardly a step up from feudalism and serfdom. A society in which citizens are born into compulsory debt bondage is simply a primitive society. One may believe that it is just the natural order of things, or that it is the only way, society could not function otherwise, et cetera; but to me this is hardly different than the argumentation of more primitive societies with regards to institutionalized slavery. The more the economy is idolized (a grossly primitive economy I might add) the more citizens are defined as tax payers. As if the exploitation inherent to capitalism were not enough we must also pay a sizable tribute to an archaic institution that ironically prides itself on somehow being advanced and noble. A good step toward a truly advanced society would be to renounce the "tax payer" idea which essentially relegates citizens to the status of serfs compelled by force to be exploited as in the days of vassals and lords, in exchange for a scenario in which citizens are truly voluntary shareholders with a dignified and vested relationship to the administrative establishment. In any case the goal ought to be the eradication of an oppressive and archaic system rather than complacency to it.

[Laudate_Dominum]

[url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fz2aE6DvHDc"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fz2aE6DvHDc[/url]

[Paddington]

LD, my feathers were ruffled until your second post smoothed them out.

So....yea....I think tgoldson agreed with me in practice but not principle?? I'm at a loss for words and knowledge at the same time.

[Aloysius]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' post='1442022' date='Jan 4 2008, 02:44 PM']Haha, since this is in the debate table I’ll try to ruffle some feathers just for fun. What follows is to some degree tongue-in-cheek.

Nothing should be taxed. A government that raises revenue by the imposition of taxes on the masses is hardly a step up from feudalism and serfdom. A society in which citizens are born into compulsory debt bondage is simply a primitive society. One may believe that it is just the natural order of things, or that it is the only way, society could not function otherwise, et cetera; but to me this is hardly different than the argumentation of more primitive societies with regards to institutionalized slavery. The more the economy is idolized (a grossly primitive economy I might add) the more citizens are defined as tax payers. As if the exploitation inherent to capitalism were not enough we must also pay a sizable tribute to an archaic institution that ironically prides itself on somehow being advanced and noble. A good step toward a truly advanced society would be to renounce the "tax payer" idea which essentially relegates citizens to the status of serfs compelled by force to be exploited as in the days of vassals and lords, in exchange for a scenario in which citizens are truly voluntary shareholders with a dignified and vested relationship to the administrative establishment. In any case the goal ought to be the eradication of an oppressive and archaic system rather than complacency to it.[/quote]


if the federal government cut spending to the levels it was at in 1997, it could get by solely on revenue generated from tarriffs et cetera and would have no need of an income tax or a sales tax (one plan calls for replacing income tax with sales tax, it would be unnecessary with those spending levels).

end the IRS!

the most immoral tax, by far, however, is property tax. this tax is indeed, no tongue in cheek at all, no better than serfdom as it deprives people of their right to ever fully and completely own their property.

the government has to generate revenue somehow, but it doesn't need income tax.