Say what you want about Romney... but he gives 30% of his income to charity.

[Nick Gromicko]

$4,020,772.00 to charity in 2011. Wow.

[Brandon Clark]

Originally Posted by gromicko

$4,020,772.00 to charity in 2011. Wow.

I'm not a Mormon but I obviously live in the most Mormon populated State in the US. I don't have anything against Mormons unless they knock on my door. They are good people for the most part.

From what I've seen and heard, the majority of the really wealthy Mormons give about 25%-30% of their income back to the church or Mormon charities. They're basically expected to give more if they earn more.

These people who try and judge Romney because he is a Mormon don't make any sense to me. Mormons believe that they have to earn their way into Heaven by acts of good service, giving to charity, supporting those that are in need, etc.. Having a Mormon President that believes in such things is just as good if not FAR BETTER than the average President who simply claims to be a "Christian" for the political gain.

[Wayne B. Wilson]

Which proves the rich do not need tax breaks.

[Michael Larson]

Originally Posted by wwilson3

Which proves the rich do not need tax breaks.

So which charity suffers when their taxes are increased and who will pick up the slack? Hmmmmm?


The screw the rich meme is stale.

[Nick Gromicko]

Which proves the rich do not need tax breaks.

Correct. But with the taxes they pay... they deserve one.

[Nathan Thornberry]

Originally Posted by gromicko

Correct. But with the taxes they pay... they deserve one.

I don't know about you, but my charitable contributions are known as "deductions", and when it comes off the top line you can make the donations you need to in order to change brackets and save more than the donations in some cases. If anything, the higher tax brackets are encouraging charitable donations.

[Michael Larson]

Originally Posted by nthornberry

I don't know about you, but my charitable contributions are known as "deductions", and when it comes off the top line you can make the donations you need to in order to change brackets and save more than the donations in some cases. If anything, the higher tax brackets are encouraging charitable donations.

change brackets?

Think about what you just said when it comes to Romney's income level.

[Nathan Thornberry]

Originally Posted by mlarson

change brackets?

Think about what you just said when it comes to Romney's income level.

On ordinary income tax he might have been closer than you think, but yes the bracket changing doesn't apply too much once you well exceed the top bracket, true.

[Wayne B. Wilson]

Originally Posted by mlarson

So which charity suffers when their taxes are increased and who will pick up the slack? Hmmmmm?
How about the tax free churches ? hmmmm that would be a good start seeing they have so much to say who to vote for.

The screw the rich meme is stale.

Yeah your right so how about just kissing my *** they are getting a break by giving to charity. do you think is is because they Care? perhaps some

[Bob Elliott]

Yes the ones with more throughout history never seek more money or more power as that is not in their nature. ha ha ha ....suckers.

No wonder your poor.

[Milton Tow]

The Tax System - Explained With Beer.
Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:
1. The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
2. The fifth would pay $1.
3. The sixth would pay $3.
4. The seventh would pay $7.
5. The eighth would pay $12.
6. The ninth would pay $18.
7. The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.
So, that's what they decided to do.
The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with thearrangement, until, one day the owner threw them a curve. "Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reducethe cost of your daily beer by $20."Drinks for the ten now cost just. $80.
The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we payour taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drinkfor free.
But what about the other six menthe paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his “fair share?” They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtractedthat from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggestedthat it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the sameamount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay. And so:
1.
2. The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
3. The sixth now paid $2 instead of3 (33%savings).
4. The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).
5. The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 ( 25% savings).
6. The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 ( 22% savings).
7. The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).
Each of the six was better off than before. The first fourcontinued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the menbegan to compare their savings. "I only got a dollar out of the $20" declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man" but he got $10!" "Yeah, that's right" exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar. It's unfair that he got ten times more than I!" "That's true!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back then I got only two?
The wealthy get all the breaks!" "Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!" The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine satdown and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!
And that boys and girls, journalists and college professors is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much attack them for being wealthy and. they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier. For those who understand, no explanation is needed. For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible.
MT

[Nick Gromicko]

That might be post-of-the-year.

[William J. Decker]

Originally Posted by belliott

Yes the ones with more throughout history never seek more money or more power as that is not in their nature. ha ha ha ....suckers.

No wonder your poor.

1) True, those with more, or enough, throughout history (recorded history, which goes back some 4,00 + years) do not seel more money or more power. Only a few do, which is why hostory does not record them. Glad you agree, Bob. (P.S., if you disagree with this, please provide citings and proof, or shut the heck up, for once.)

2) It's "you're" not "your". You're is a contractions of "you are" which is what you meant, while "your" is the referential possessive. But then, most of us learned that in 4th grade.

Hope this helps;

Note: Please refer to both #1 and #2 as burns and a case against the Chicago Teacher's Union being full of idiots.

[David Hays]

Originally Posted by wdecker

1) True, those with more, or enough, throughout history (recorded history, which goes back some 4,00 + years) do not seel more money or more power. Only a few do, which is why hostory does not record them. Glad you agree, Bob. (P.S., if you disagree with this, please provide citings and proof, or shut the heck up, for once.)

2) It's "you're" not "your". You're is a contractions of "you are" which is what you meant, while "your" is the referential possessive. But then, most of us learned that in 4th grade.

Hope this helps;

Note: Please refer to both #1 and #2 as burns and a case against the Chicago Teacher's Union being full of idiots.

LOL. Did the Chicago Teacher's Union teach you how to spell? Just had to ask considering your second item above.

[Cameron Anderson]

Originally Posted by wwilson3

Which proves the rich do not need tax breaks.

Kudos to Romney for setting a good example. And I'll bet that 4 mil is accomplishing a whole lot more good than if the fed were spending it. Any lib fools want to argue that?

I find it laughable that anyone thinks the rich get "tax breaks" when they pay a higher percentage than everyone else.

If rich democrats think they should pay higher taxes, they can go right ahead and do it. No one, including the IRS, is stopping them. None of them will do it, proving they don't mean a word of the tax drivel which pours out of their mouths.