Flat Tax and Tithing

[Stifle Tower]

I don't know , are they? My understanding is that people receiving food stamps have to sign their name to a government application which requires them to disclose all assets and income, and the government can check as to their validity. I would imagine that if the government requires them to report this as income, then it is reported as income. I would think that if they owe much in taxes, then they don't qualify for food stamps.
Food stamps for a single person would be much less then help with food AND rent AND utilities AND medical bills and God knows what else. Your comparison is poor.

The welfare system in the LDS church is generally very short-term, especially when it comes to paying utilities. The LDS Church RARELY pays someone's rent or mortgage payments. You can google or bing "Is charitable aid taxable?" and the answer I read on several Q&A sites by CPA's was "NO." Now there might be a different standard or threshold for cash gifts, and that might be why the LDS Church writes out a check to the particular utility vs. giving a person cash to deposit in their bank account.

 

[green]

I've been on food stamps. They don't cover shrimp and steak, unless you have your own, outside money or are wiling to skip meals. Nor am I ignoring anything. I just acknowledged that many people who live in poor neighborhoods spend money just as you suggested. I guess my agreement was a little confusing for you.

Yes they do. You can buy shrimp and steaks with food stamps. My wife and I FINALLY went on food stamps our last year of schooling after watching our classmates eat like kings. We would bring hot dogs to cookouts while they brought shrimp, bacon wrapped steaks, etc. We were given over $800 a month for food for two adults, a two year old and an infant. We have NEVER eaten as good as when we were on food stamps and we currently make WELL OVER six figures a year.

 

[green]

Conservatives seem to think liberals don't want people to succeed, but the opposite is true. I have no problems with your success, and you should enjoy the fruits thereof. I just want my students, and the kids that go to the clinics I work for, to have that same chance.

So why do all of the liberals ideas just enslave people? Liberals ideas cause dependance, not liberty. Yet, they continue to push those ideas, even when they have all failed and bankrupted many cities/states.

 

[green]

Quick story. My grandfather once risked 80% of his total worth to start a company in a depressed town that was desperately in need of jobs. He obviously believed in his idea and understood the risks.. but also was genuinely trying to help the town.

As part of the negotiation to put the required millions into the venture, he gained approval from both local and state government to have relief from both corporate income tax and sales tax for a period of years. As a result of years of struggle, unassuredness, and fortitude, the venture was considered a success. More than 700 employees were hired (with less than 10% at minimum wage) and the town then drew in more business because the community could better support those businesses. These brought even more jobs and now that town is flourishing.
I sincerely believe had it not been for my grandfather and forward thinking politicians the town would have failed or still be stuck in rough rut.

But you know what? Even though my grandfather receivee multiple humanitarian of year awards.. he still had some that resented his success ane felt it was unfair that he got to build his company free of taxes in the beginning.

I have lived in Philly for awhile, and worked A TON in North Philly, possibly the poorest area in the country. There are empty warehouses EVERYWHERE in North Philly. Places where people could be working.

I've often wondered aloud, why doesn't the city of Philadelphia go to companies like Nike, or Apple, or any other large corporation and say, "We will let you operate for 10, 20, etc years TAX FREE, providing you do a, b, c (like hire at least xxxx employees, average wage at $***, provide xxxx benefits). It would cost the city NOTHING to do. It would take an area of over 200,000 people where over 70% live below poverty and give them jobs.

With jobs, comes salaries. With salaries comes pride in ones self. With pride comes home ownership, then comes a desire to keep up your investment. With that comes a desire to improve the neighborhood, leading to less crime, more education, which leads to higher salaries.

ALSO, it takes a neighborhood where over 70% of the inhabitants are receiving government aid, gives them jobs, and instead of those people relying on taxpayers to survive, THEY BECOME TAX PAYERS. The government has effectively raised their revenues while lowering their overhead.

But, this will never happen because IT'S NOT FAIR THAT APPLE DIDN'T PAY TAXES. Everyone else in the city improved their lives, BUT NIKE MADE TOO MUCH MONEY. So, let's screw over the WHOLE CITY, just to make sure Nike/Apple/Mitt doesn't earn any money.

Yeah, the left is just in it to help people succeed. Give me a break.

It's like in the debates, where President Obama was told by the moderator that lowering the capital gains tax raised revenue for the government, but Obama was against it because, "it wasn't fair."

Moron.

 

[babe]

Quick story. My grandfather once risked 80% of his total worth to start a company in a depressed town that was desperately in need of jobs. He obviously believed in his idea and understood the risks.. but also was genuinely trying to help the town.

As part of the negotiation to put the required millions into the venture, he gained approval from both local and state government to have relief from both corporate income tax and sales tax for a period of years. As a result of years of struggle, unassuredness, and fortitude, the venture was considered a success. More than 700 employees were hired (with less than 10% at minimum wage) and the town then drew in more business because the community could better support those businesses. These brought even more jobs and now that town is flourishing.

I sincerely believe had it not been for my grandfather and forward thinking politicians the town would have failed or still be stuck in rough rut.

But you know what? Even though my grandfather receivee multiple humanitarian of year awards.. he still had some that resented his success ane felt it was unfair that he got to build his company free of taxes in the beginning.

I generally don't like "incentives" like this as a matter of principle. "Special deals" are less desirable than general opportunities. I want less government, and less government power to make special deals. Where "deals" like this have to be made to get the economy going we should really look at the whole picture and realize that taxes are indeed a problem and should be reduced for everyone. Eliminate the nonproductive government activities that are making it hard for business to be profitable in competition with all the places on earth where taxes are lower.

At least realize that lower taxes can often bring in more total revenue, well. . . . when the fact is that business activity is being negatively impacted by the present tax level. . . .

But it is still a valid point that your grandfather did a good thing, working with the situation that he found and finding a way to go forward with the business.

 

[babe]

When the Mormons arrived in the Salt Lake Valley, Brigham Young issued scrip-----tithing office notes---- to people who had no work. The notes were accepted by farmers in exchange for produce. . . . by other tradesmen and businesses for whatever goods were needed. These "productive" or "established" folks brought either goods or "scrip" to pay their tithing. The bishop's storehouse began to fill up, and newcomers with the "charity" scrip could get things they needed. . . . . and live a while on that until they found something they could do. People moved through the "charity" phase pretty quick because it wasn't acceptable for people to just do nothing. Brigham Young regularly "called" the newcomes with no place to fit in to go off and start new farming settlements. A lot of people were "employed" as workers on church buildings or other community infrastructure. . . . streets, canals. . . .

I think people on any public support should be expected to work in some way or another, whatever way they can, while taking that public support. It's a terrible idea to let them sit at home and watch TV.

 

[bordelais7]

No, they shouldn't be exempt from tithing. But it's not an equivalent matter. Tithing is (in my opinion/the LDS view) a commandment from God, with a flat rate mandated by revelation. And people are promised blessings for following the commandment. Taxes are not a commandment from God, except via the "render unto Caesar" thing, and there is certainly no such thing as a flat governmental tax rate revealed in the scriptures. And no promised blessings for paying a tax (except the blessing of staying out of jail ;-) ).

Actually, when the United Order was in effect, you could say that there was perhaps even a negative tax rate for poor people because they got back more than they gave to the government.

Anyway, another consideration is that poor LDS people also sometimes get helped via fast offerings. When in that situation their "effective tithing rate" (my phrase, not God's) would be lower than 10% if you consider the money they give up combined with the financial assistance they get back. So even in the LDS church, tithing isn't as flat as the flat tax proponents might want us to believe.

I'm confused -- does a flat tax proposal assume no welfare programs? And there are certainly "blessings" or "rewards" for paying taxes, albeit not in the religious sense. I see the situations as far more similar than you do.

Let's say an LDS tithepayer makes $10k and pays $1k in tithing, but receives $800 in financial assistance. Why doesn't the bishop just have the member pay 2% tithing to simplify the matter? Because promised blessings are predicated upon obedience to the payment of 10% tithe. There is something about the process of paying a tithe which encourages growth within the individual.

Someone already alluded to a similar benefit that a taxpayer would receive with the "skin in the game" comment. I would assume that a $10k earner paying $1k or $2k in taxes would receive welfare benefits far exceeding that amount in many cases. The math works out the same in the end whether they receive a benefit as a tax break or as a welfare payment, but I believe the process is important.

 

[colton]

I see everyone paying something, even if some people receive it and more back in various forms (including cash), as a way to make everyone feel invested and that everyone is in this together. When 50% of people pay no tax, yet have a voice in how many benefits they should receive and how much actual taxpayers should pay I think it generates the kind of resentment and distrust we see in every aspect of politics today.

I agree. Even the lowest tax brackets should pay some income tax. (By the way, the way you phrased that, "50% of people pay no tax", is not accurate--those people still pay sales and other taxes. They just don't pay income tax.)

 

[MoreFeasts]

A flat tax and eliminating loopholes are two different things. Don't be shining light up my *** telling me you want a flat tax so that loopholes will be eliminated. You'll still have the loopholes, just more taxes for poor people and more feasts for rich people.

 

[Stoked]

A flat tax and eliminating loopholes are two different things. Don't be shining light up my *** telling me you want a flat tax so that loopholes will be eliminated. You'll still have the loopholes, just more taxes for poor people and more feasts for rich people.

And yet you are arguing for closing a loophole that the poor exploit.

 

[MoreFeasts]

No, if someone is poor, than they won't owe taxes on a little income from charity, unless Colton gets his way. Take it up with him, not me.

Besides I wasn't sure I was arguing for closing a loophole at all. I was stating that those people maybe should be reporting that income on their tax return under our current system. I don't know the law on this.

but yes, in general I would like to close loopholes and simplify the tax system. In fact, I'd like to do away with income taxes altogether, but if you are going to have them, then they should be applied fairly.

 

[Stoked]

No, if someone is poor, than they won't owe taxes on a little income from charity, unless Colton gets his way. Take it up with him, not me.

You were just in here saying they should claim it on their taxes. That would limit the assistance they receive at tax time and for some possibly deny them other tax benefits. You argued that. What Colton did or did not do is irrelevant to you arguing that.

 

[Dr. Jones]

I generally don't like "incentives" like this as a matter of principle. "Special deals" are less desirable than general opportunities. I want less government, and less government power to make special deals. Where "deals" like this have to be made to get the economy going we should really look at the whole picture and realize that taxes are indeed a problem and should be reduced for everyone. Eliminate the nonproductive government activities that are making it hard for business to be profitable in competition with all the places on earth where taxes are lower.
At least realize that lower taxes can often bring in more total revenue, well. . . . when the fact is that business activity is being negatively impacted by the present tax level. . . .

But it is still a valid point that your grandfather did a good thing, working with the situation that he found and finding a way to go forward with the business.

It boggles my mind the percentage of people that have been brainwashed into believing there really isn't that much government waste in spending.

 

[Stoked]

It boggles my mind the percentage of people that have been brainwashed into believing there really isn't that much government waste in spending.

That right there is the thing. If government was serious about reducing waste and being responsible with the money they already have they would have more than enough. They would not need to raise taxes.

 

[colton]

No, if someone is poor, than they won't owe taxes on a little income from charity, unless Colton gets his way. Take it up with him, not me.

Not quite sure what you are referring to here.

 

[Gameface]

I agree. Even the lowest tax brackets should pay some income tax. (By the way, the way you phrased that, "50% of people pay no tax", is not accurate--those people still pay sales and other taxes. They just don't pay income tax.)

I'll phrase that better next time. Not trying to parrot Fox News talking points, I promise.

 

[Dr. Jones]

Not quite sure what you are referring to here.

I assumed he meant that if you had your way everyone would be LDS and therefore everyone would owe tithes. But I'm not him... so dunno..

 

[Gameface]

It boggles my mind the percentage of people that have been brainwashed into believing there really isn't that much government waste in spending.

I always visualize it as the money passing through a series of filters. Every set of hands the money passes through is another set of filters that reduce the amount of money that flows out the other end. Much of what government does is take our money, cycle it through the system a couple times and then spit it back out much less than it was before.

 

[Dr. Jones]

I always visualize it as the money passing through a series of filters. Every set of hands the money passes through is another set of filters that reduce the amount of money that flows out the other end. Much of what government does is take our money, cycle it through the system a couple times and then spit it back out much less than it was before.

Yes. In earlier threads on this topic I've also given real life, first hand, accounts of rampant and blatant misuse of taxpayer monies due, mostly, to faulty budgetary protocols.. too much to type for now.. but I think it would be a fun thread for us to compile ways the government is wasting money (specifically) and start a list.

I'm all for taxes, obviously... but I HATE waste. If I don't stand for it in my own household and business, why should I stand for it (and keep throwing money at the problem) in governing the country.

 

[MoreFeasts]

Not quite sure what you are referring to here.

Stokes was incorrectly stating that I wanted poor people to no longer be able to abuse the system through receiving income from churches and not reporting it as income. I am saying that if you got your wishes, than poor people would have to pay taxes on all income even though their income is so small that all of it is needed for things like rent and health care.