by 
Part of President Obama’s budget has a weird twist. I mean, we all know that he wants to raise taxes on the wealthy. We also know that he wants to give that money to the poor. So why is he doing it by capping the amount that the wealthy can give away?
Because socialism is all about government control.
“This will lead people to give less to charities if they behave the way they’ve behaved in the past,” he said. “We’ve already seen a drop in giving as a result of the economic collapse. On top of that, this will just reduce the amount of giving.”
Asked about that, Office of Management and Budget Director Peter Orszag said Mr. Obama took care of that by giving charities government money to make up part of the difference.
“Contained in the recovery act, there’s $100 million to support nonprofits and charities as we get through this period of economic difficulty,” he said.
See, it’s not important that the wealthy give to charity– let the government do it. I mean, it’s not enough that we’re in debt and have a budget deficit that will send us further. No, we have to add to it, and take away more personal liberty and responsibility…
Let alone, do you believe that it will be Catholic charities that will get this new money, or can you look far enough into the future where the ACLU, etc., will argue that money from the government to religious charities will be a violation of the Separation of Church and State.
This is power grab, and if you can’t see it, then your blind.
I’m a big fan of socialism, so I’m far from upset with this “power grab.” That said, while I’m all for an increased tax rate for those making over $250K, I’m not completely sold on the plan to reduce deductions for mortgage insurance and charitable contributions.
What I’d really like to see is every American paying a flat tax rate to the government: no deductions, everyone paying exactly the same. I’d really love for someone to run the numbers on all of us paying say 12% each year, regardless of income.
Musicguys last blog post..Happy Darwin Day!
@Musicguy: While I definitely disagree with you on socialism (and I believe history is on my side here), I’m with you on the tax. Except, I wouldn’t make it income tax, I’d make it a sales or VAT tax. I have, in my sidebar, the fair tax proposal legislation which I’m definitely for. Tax people when they buy, not when they get paid– that way they can save without being taxed, and those whose income is inherited can be taxed when they buy their yachts and things.
What do you think of that?
what would that sales tax rate have to be in order to make up for income tax? Secondly, since states use sales tax to fund many programs, how would they make up the loss of revenue?
@Musicguy: You’d have to read the full “fair tax” bill in order to get all the specifics, but I believe there’s some discrepancy in the figures– they forecast between 13% and 27%. If you factor in, however, all the taxes that are done on income and between companies, it really makes less of an impact, and revenue is made up on the fact that money that is not income (inheritance, etc.) will now be taxed when spent, and you’ll be able to take home all of your paycheck.
Why would you think that states would lose revenue? I highly doubt people would start not buying things simply because the tax money shifted. Plus, every state is different. States have income taxes, property taxes, etc, which they would have to decide what to do with each one.
The point is that every country that has moved to a consumption or sales tax method has actually had more money come in to the government (not that I’m a fan of that, mind you) and been deemed fair and made their people happy.
We are becoming a socialist nation. It’s scary.
Flat tax aside (I think it’s an excellent idea myself), if the government would just step back and cut people a break with their taxes, people would have more discretionary income to consume and give away.
My husband just took a 50% paycut because he works for a non-profit solely supported by charitable donations. Since Pres Obama has been in office, giving has dropped even more and it’s looking like the budget is going to be reworked again. People aren’t feeling more charitable; they are feeling more scared.
Rachels last blog post..In Which I Admit What You Guys Already Know…
But of course, the government won’t step aside, and give us a tax break, especially not now that our deficit is pushing 2 trillion. What galls me is he criticizes the trillion we inherited from Bush, and yet he’s added his own trillion to the balance. It’s so hypocritical. Don’t get me wrong, I didn’t support Bush’s spending spree either. But why is it not OK for Bush to do that over 8 years but it is OK for Pres Obama to spend that in two months!
Last comment, glad you are back posting on this. 🙂
Rachels last blog post..In Which I Admit What You Guys Already Know…
Newt Gingrich calls it the ‘Bush-Obama continuity in economic policy’ and the ‘Bush-Obama big spending program’. The only difference here is that Bush had approval ratings in the 20s and Obama’s ratings are in the 60s. That’s why no one is protesting.